\V 


s5^ 


kr  PPIM^ 


^^OtOfilCAl   S,l\tS^^ 


BX  8935  .W7  1843 
Woods,  H. 

The  history  of  the 
Presbyterian  controversy 


THE  HISTORY 


THE   PRESBYTERIAN   CONTROVERSY 


EARLY  SKETCHES  OF  PRESBYTERiAN!SM. 


BY   H.   WOODS. 


[copy   right   SECl'KiO.; 


LOUISVlL-IiE; 

PRINTED  BY  N,  H.  WHITE,  MARKET  STREET 
1843. 


'-'»W>tv.,->*^^««»,ft, 


CONTENTS. 


CIIAPTKR  1.  Early  Sketches  of  Prcsbytenanism-^ 
Westminster  Assembly. 

CilAPTER  If.  Union  of  Presbyterians  and  Congregu* 
-tionalists — Primitive  and  Liberal  Policy  of  American 
Presbyterianism. 

CHAPTER  111.     The  Controversy  and  Schism  of  1741. 

CHAPTER  IV.  The  Policy  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  struggle  for  National  Independence. 

CHAPTER  V.     Plan  of  Union  of  1801. 

CHAPTER  VI.     The  Hopkinsian  Controversy. 

CHAPTER  VII.  The  Home  Missionary  Controversy- 
Old  School  Circular — New  School  Disavowal — Drs. 
Green  and  Beman — Cincinnati  Convention. 

CHAPTER  Vlll.  Voluntary  Societies  and  Ecclesiasti- 
cal Boards. 

CHAPTER  IX.  Assembly  of  1831— ^!r.  Barnes' Caso 
— Re-examination — Elective  Affinity. 

CHAPTER  X.     The  Act  and  Testimony. 

CHAPTER  XI.     General  Assemblv  of  1835. 


CliArTLR  XII.  The  Foveigti  Mission  Question — As- 
sembly of  1836. 

t'HAPTER  XIII.  .Mr.  Barnes'  Case  again— .Secret  Cir- 
cular. 

CHAPTER  XIV.  Policy  of  the  two  Parties  in  reference 
to  the  Division  of  the  Church, 

CHAPTER  XV.     Old  School  Convention  of  1837. 

CHAi^TEK  XVI.     The  General  Assembly  of  1837. 

CHAPTER  XVII.  Operation  of  the  Excinding  Acts«- 
Argumen'.s  of  the  Parties  for,  and  against  Excision — 
The  true  character  of  the  Excinded  Synods — The 
I'olicy  of  the  Reformers. 

CHAPTER  XVIII.     The  Controversy  about  Doctrines. 

CHAPTER  XIX.     The  Auburn  Convention. 

CHAPTER  XX.  The  Assembly  of  1838— The  Division 
of  the  Church — The  tumult  in  the  organization  of 
the  Assembly. 

CHAPTER  XXI.  The  Policy  of  the  New  Basis  Assem- 
bly. 

CHAPTER  XXII.     Thegreat  reform  Ordinance  of  1838. 

CHAPTER  XXIII.  Unsuccessful  efforts  for  an  amica- 
ble adjustment. 

CHAPTER  XXIV.     Results  of  legal  investigation. 


The  opinion  of  the  venerable  Dr.  (Jle'and,  in  regard  la 
the  merits  of  this  work,  is  here  inserted: 

The  "History  of  the  Presbyterian  Controversy,"  by  the  Rev.  H. 
Woods,  I  have  carefully  read,  and  with  no  small  interest  and  gratifica- 
rion.  It  embodies,  in  a  succinct  form,  a  large  amount  of  matter  fountV 
ed  on  facts  and  evidences,  contained  in  official  and  historical  docu- 
ments, not  to  be  successfully  controverted.  It  will  serve  admirably  as 
A  book  of  reference  for  the  present  generaiion,  as  well  as  a  little  store- 
house of  information  for  posterit)',  to  whom  it  is  especially  commended. 
As  for  the  style,  it  is  familiar  and  agreeaWe,  exhibiting  a  perspicuity 
and  accuracy  rarely  to  be  found  in  similar  modern  productions,  wAich 
makes  the  work  at  once  both  valuable  and  desirable  of  attainment. 
I  cordially  wieJi  it  a  hearty  patronage  and  '"■xtensive  circulation- 

TliOMAi*?  C7-.Ef.AND. 


PREFACE 


Thk  history  of  the  controversy  and  schism  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  embraces  a  very  eventful  period  in 
the  annals  of  the  American  Church.  After  the  division, 
I  was  induced  to  undertake  the  task  of  writing  a  brief 
history  of  this  whole  matter.  The  work  was  accomplished 
with  some  labor  and  with  great  care.  The  statements 
made  rest  mainly  upon  documentary  evidence  ;  and  their  ' 
correctness  has  not  been  controverted,  though  submitted  to 
the  public,  through  the  "Presbyterian  Sentinel,"  during 
the  years  1841  and  1842. 

The  reason  why  I  originally  undertook  this  work  was 
to  gratify  a  very  general  desire  to  know  tohat  caused  the 
division  of  the  Pre-shyferian  Church,  and  what  separates 
the  two  parties.  This  anxiety  for  information  was  not 
confined  to  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The  members  of 
other  churches,  and  the  people  of  the  world  were  anxious 
to  understand  the  subject. 

I  thought  it  best  to  present  briefly  some  early  sketches 
of  Presbyterianism,  as  introductory  to  the  main  object. 
,  And  especially  did  I  deem  it  necessary  to  present  some 
sketches  of  primitive  American  Presbyterianism,  seeing 
this  question  runs  through  all  the  controversy :  Which 
party  is  the  oldest,  and  which  has  departed  most  widely 
from  the  principles  upon  which  the  American  Presbyterian 
Church  was  founded  ?  The  so  called  New  School  party 
professea  to  be  as  old  as  the  so  called  Old  School  party. 


VHl 

The  New  School  also  urge  that  they  stand  upon  the  foun-- 
dalion  of  primitive  American  Preshyterianism  ;  and  that 
the  measures  that  resulted  in  the  disntiemberment  of  the 
Church  were  the  new  or  reform  measures  of  the  Old 
Sciiool.  To  settle  questions  of  this  nature,  it  was  neces- 
sary to  examine  our  early  history,  to  see  upon  what 
principles  the  American  Church  was  founded. 

The  history  of  so  important  a  period,  in  the  annals  of 
our  Church,  should  not  only  be  presented  to  those  now- 
living,  but  should  also  be  handed  down  to  coming  genera-- 
tions,  that  their  curiosity  may  be  gratified,  and  that  they 
may  learn  wisdom  from  our  sad  experience. 

Where  I  have  relied  on  historians  so  correct,  in  gene- 
ral, as  Moshiem  and  Neal,I  have  not  burdened  the  history 
by  minute  references.  This  was  unnecessary,  as  what  I 
have  said  of  Preshyterianism  prior  to  the  organization  of 
the  Church  in  Ameiica,  will  not  be  controverted  by  any 
one.  -  Bat  aa  my  statements  in  relation  to  the  history  of 
our  Church  in  America  may  be  subjected  to  the  most  rigid 
scrutiny,  I  have  not  only  quoted  good  authorities,  but  have 
made  my  references  sufficiently  ample. 

I  have  only  to  add,  that  I  have  written  these  chapters 
as  I  trust,  in  the  fear  of  God.  I  have  written  them  with 
an  expectation  that  they  will  be  read,  and  with  a  hope 
that  they  will  promote  the  advancement  of  truth  and 
righteousness. 

THE  AUTHOR,. 

Glasgow,  Ky.   1843. 


THE   PRESBYTERIAN   CONTROVERSY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

p:arly  seetchbs  of  PHESBTTERIANISM  — westmin- 

STER  ASSEMBLY. 

The  Church  of  Christ,  before  ilsalh'ai'ice.  in  the  fourth' 
century,  with  the  State  under  Constantine,  flourished  with» 
out  the  aid  of  civil  power.  Tiien  the  way  seemed  to  be 
open,  for  a  more  extensive  propagatiun  of  the  gospel,  than 
at  any  former  time.  But  the  advantages  of  this  union  were 
not  real.  Religion  suffered  by  corriing  in  contact  with 
civil  power  and  seculiar  arrangements.  The  purity  and 
simplicity  of  Christianity  were  corrupted  ;.  forms  and  cere- 
monies were  multiplied:  a  worldly  policy  controlled 
the  ministers  of  religion,  and  soon  the  kuigdom  of  Christ 
became  a  kingdom  of  this  world. 

From  the  fourth  to  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century,  a 
long  night  of  eleven  centuries,  the  Church  was  in  a  deplor- 
able condition,  if  we  except  the  Waldenses,  who,  during 
that  long  period,  seemed  to  stand  aloof  from  the  establish- 
ment. We  no  more  expect  to  find  a  correct  systeni  of 
Church  Government  among  the  Roman  Catholics,  than  a 
correct  system  oi faith.  And  we  knmv  so  little  of  the 
history  of  the  Waldenses,  that  we  ought  not  to  say  what 
form  of  Church  government  they  maint:uned. 

About  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the 
light   of  the    reformation  began  to  dawn  upon  the  world. 


10 

'the  Protestants  all  condemned  the  government  of  the  Pa- 
pists as  well  as  their  doctrines.  But  they  could  not  agree 
among  themselves.  A  very  respectable  portion  believed, 
that  the  primitive  form  of  Church  government  was  Pres- 
byterian. Among  the  advocates  of  this  form  of  govern* 
ment  was  Calvin,  who  lived  in  the  beginning  of  the  six* 
teenth  century.  Moshiem  says  of  him  :  "He  maintained, 
that  the  church  was  to  be  governed,  like  the  primitive 
Church,  only  by  Presbyteries  and  Synods,  that  is,  by  as- 
semblies of  elders,  composed  both  of  the  clergy  and  laity; 
and  he  left  to  a  civil  magistrate  little  more  than  the  privi- 
lege of  protecting  and  defending  the  Church,  and  providing 
for  what  related  to  its  external  exigencies  and  concerns^ 
Thus  this  eminent  reformer  introduced  into  the  Republic  of 
Geneva,  and  endeavored  to  introduce  into  all  the  reform- 
ed churches,  throughout  Europe,  that  form  of  ecclesias- 
tical government,  which  is  called  Presbyterian,  from  its 
neither  admitting  the  institution  of  bishops,  nor  any  subor- 
dination among  the  clergy;  and  which  is  founded  on  this 
principle,  that  "all  ministers  of  the  gospel  are,  by  the  law 
of  God,  declaimed  to  be  equal  in  rank  and  authority." 

The  Presbyterian  form  of  church  government,  which 
was  adopted  by  Calvin,  became  the  model  for  the  reform- 
ed churches  in  many  countries  of  Europe.  Frederick  HI., 
elector  of  Palatine,  in  1560,  removed  from  their  pastoral 
charge  the  Lutheran  doctors,  and  filled  their  places  witli 
those  who  favored  the  doctrines  and  discipline  of  C:ilvin. 
This  form  of  ecclesiastical  government  was  embraced  by 
his  subjects  and  became  the  established  institution.  The 
Republic  of  Bremen  adopted  the  same  form  of  government. 
Other  German  Stales  also  regulated  their  faith  and  forms 
of  government  by  thai  of  Geneva. 

T'he  French  P^-otestants,  though  they  differed  among 
tl.ems-tlves,  were  ge5;ierally  under  the  influence  of  the  Swiss 
divines.  This  is  easily  accounted  for  from  their  proximity 
to  Geneva,  and  the  efforts  of  those  zealous  and  eminant 
men,  Calvin,  Farel  and  Beza.  Thus,  before  the  middle  of 
the  sixteenth  century,  the  French  Protestants  entered  into 
the  bonds  of  fraternal  communion  with  the  church  of 
Geneva.  It  is  therefore  clear,  that  the  Protestants  of 
France  were  Presbyterians.  They  were  however,  called 
by  their  enemies,  Huguenots — a  term  of  reproach. 


li 

The  church  of  Scotland  was  founded  by  John  Knox,  a 
disciple  of  C-.ilvin  ;  and  from  that  time  down  to  the  present, 
Presbyterians  have  always  been  the  most  numerous. 

The  Presbyterian  form  of  government  was  more  re- 
luctantly embraced  in  England  than  Scotland.  Yet  after 
the  death  of  Henry  Vlll.  the  doctrines  o^  Calvin  were 
embraced  by  ihe  ministers  and  churches  of  England. 
And  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  Geneva  was  acknowledged 
as  a  sister  church,  and  the  doctrines  of  Calvin  were 
adopted,(and  rendered  the  public  rule  of  faith.  The  form 
of  government,  however,  then  established  was  not  Presby- 
terian. Yet  the  Presbyterians  were  a  numerous  body. 
But  they  were  divided  among  themselves.  Some  were  dis- 
])osed  to  observe  the  ritual  established  by  Edward.  But 
others  were  conscientiously  opposed  to  that  form  of  gov? 
ernment,  and  the  rites  and  ceremonies  enjoined.  To  such 
persons  the  name  of  Puritans  was  given,  on  account  of 
their  contending  for  a  more  pure  worship  than  the  liturgy 
s?t  up  by  Edy/ard. 

A  large  portion  of  those  called  Puritans  were  Presby- 
terians, yet  among  the  Puritans  were  reckoned  the  Inde- 
pendents and  Baptists. 

In  the  history  of  the  English  Church,  it  will  be  remem- 
bered, that  the  Presbyterians  were  called  by  different 
names — Puritans,  Nonconformists,  Dissenters — names 
common  to  all  who  oppose  the  discipline  and  forms  of  the 
established  church. 

The  Congregationalists,  were  called  Independents. 
The  same  names  were  often  applied  to  them  as  to  Presbyte- 
rians. They  agreed  in  articles  of  faith  ;  and  the  difference 
between  the  two  bodies,  in  their  .views  of  church  govern- 
ment, was  at  times  deemed  so  unimportant,  that  they  liv- 
ed  upon  terms  of  correspondence  and  communion. 

In  Ireland,  the  reformation  was  not  general.  Yet  from 
an  early  period  there  were  Presbyterians  there,  and  large 
and  respectable  churches. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  reformation  in  the  Belgian 

Provinces,  the  people  hesitated  whether  thoy   would  fash- 

'ion  their  faith  and  discipline  after  Luther  or  Calvin.     But 

after    the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century,  they    publicly 

adopted  the  system  of  Calvin. 

Jhe  reputation  of  this  great  Reformer,  and  of  the  CoU 


\em  at  Geticva,  togellior  with  the  indefatigable  zeal  of  the 
Swiss  in  extending  their  system  of  doctrine  and  govern- 
ment, will  readily  account  for  the  prevalence  of  this  sys' 
tern,  not  only  omong  tlie  reformed  churches  of  France, 
hut  those  of  Belgium  and  other  States  near  to  France.  - 

This  system  of  faith  and  discipline  found  its  way  into 
Saxony,  Poland,  Prussia,  Deuniirlc,  and  nearly  all  the 
countries  of  Europe,  and  was  extensively  embraced  at  an 
early  period  of  the  reformation. 

Though  the  Presbyterian  system  vvns  extensively  em- 
braced, yet  it  is  not  to  be  inferred  that  there  was  a  perfect 
uniformity.  Moshiem  says:  "This  universal  conformity 
was.  indeed,  ardently  desired  by  the  Helvetic  doctors  ;  but 
thoir  desires,  in  this  respect,  were  far  fiom  being  accom- 
j)lished."' 

On  the  intricate  doctrine  of  Predeslination — the  prima- 
t-y  cause  of  the  salvation  of  the  elect — or  the  ruin  of  the 
reprobate,  some  adopted  one  vievv  and  some  another.  And 
it  was  so  in  reference  to  some  other  deep  subjects  in 
theology. 

There  were  dilterences  in  their  form  of  discipline.  Some 
were  for  a  General  Assembly,  and  others  not.  Some  or- 
dained ciders  for  life;  and  some  were  for  one  year. 
Some  believed  in  the  divine  right  of  Presbytery  and  oth- 
ers not.  Some  were  for  the  toleration  of  other  sects,  and 
others  ijot.  That  period  of  the  world,  however,  was 
gtrongly  mariced  by  bigotry  and  intolerance.  And  in  an 
age  of  po  much  intolerance,  we  are  almost  surprised  to 
learn,  that,  at  an  early  period  of  the  reformation,  this 
maxim,  having  a  tendency  to  promote  concord,  was  pretty 
generally  adopted,  viz.:  "That  Jesus  Christ  has  left  upon 
record  no  express  injunctions  with  respect  to  the  external 
form  of  government  that  is  to  be  observed  in  his  church." 
But  this  maxim  was  not  carried  into  effect.  The  world 
had  been  so  long  accustomed  to  a  union  of  church  and 
State,  that  the  great  mass  seemed  never  to  think  of  any 
thing  biit  an  establishment.  And  men  of  learning  and 
piety,  in  every  sect,  seemed  to  think  their  party  was  the 
only  true  church. 

Upon  a  review  of  the  feelings  and  policy  of  our  ances- 
tors, the  English,  Scotch  and  Irish,  we  find  much  to  admire. 
They   were  the  firm  friends  of  the  reformation,  the  bolql 


13 

and  courageous  defenders  of  their  liberties,  the  patrons  of 
learning  and  of  morals.  But  in  their  history,  we  find 
much  to  condetnn.  They  were  too  rigid  and  uncompio- 
fnising  in  things  indifferent ;  too  intolerant  towards  otheis, 
and  too  fond  of  the  aid  of  civil  {jower. 

Indeed,  the  lionor  of  the  christian  religion  demands  the 
concession  long  since  made,  that  '■'■all  parties  of  chris- 
tians., when  in  poioer,  have  been  guilty  of  persecution  for 
conscience  sake,"  and  that  "ti  is  unsafe  and  dangerous 
to  trust  any  sort  of  clergy  wilh  the  sivord.''^ 

In  England  and  Scotland, our  Presbyterian  ancestors,  as 
well  as  others,  were  for  one  mode  of  worship,  and  one  forni 
of  church  government  for  the  whole  nation,  to  which  all 
must  conform.  Perfect  uniformity  was  attempted  in  Queen 
Elizabeth's  reign  ;  uniformity  too,  in  many  respects,  about 
things  indifferent,  according  to  the  opinions  of  the  party  in 
power.  The  contest  was  then  mainly  about  unity  of 
apparel.  Those  who  refused  the  gown,  cap.  &c.  did 
so  because  they  regarded  them  as  ihe  garments  of  Po- 
pery. But  for  this  refusal,  ministers  were  cut  off  from 
the  church  and  imprisoned,  and  families  ruined.  The 
cries  of  the  people  for  preachers  reached  the  court.  Bat 
it  pleased  the  bishops  to  let  the  people  do  without  the 
means  of  grace,  unless  their -preachers  would  take  the  sur- 
plice and  cap  ! 

Upon  this  fatal  rock  o^ perfect  uniformity  the  Church 
of  England  split.  Neal  says  :  "The  rigorous  pressing  of. 
this  act  was  the  occasion  of  all  the  mischiefs  that  befell 
•the  church  for  above  eighty  years." 

In  consequence  of  their  persecutions,  the  Puritans,  in 
the  reign  of  Charles  I.,  began  to  make  rapid  settlements 
in  North  America.  One  remarkable  instance — the  cele- 
brated John  Cotton,  a  popular  preacher,  of  meek  and  gen- 
tle disposition.  He  became  a  non-conformist,  and  omitted 
some  of  the  ceremonies  of  the  Church.  He  was  informed 
against.  He  applied  to  the  Earl  of  Dorset  to  befriend 
him.  But  the  Earl  sent  him  word,  that,  '•'■if  he  had  been 
guilty  of  drunkenness,  uncleanness,  or  any  such  lesser 
fault,  he  could  have  got  his  pardon,  but  the  sin  of  Puri- 
tanism and  non-cot f or mity  is  unpardonable,  and  therefore 
yoxi  must  fly  for  your  safety."'     Upon  this  he  traveled  to 

■3 


14 

London  in  disguise,  and  took  passige   for  New    England, 
wliere  he  spent  the  remainder  of  his  life. 

In  this  reign,  the  Presbyterian  Estublishment  of  Scot- 
land was  made  to  quake.  During  the  reign  of  Elizabeth 
and  James  I.,  the  Presbyterians  in  the  North  were  free 
from  the  troubles  of  their  brethren  in  England.  But  when 
(;harles  1.,  in  1637,  attempted  to  force  upon  them  the 
liturgy  of  the  English  Estaljlishment,  they  rallied  under 
their  Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  and  finally  triumphed 
over  every  attempt  to  subvert  their  system.  Could  we 
jtersuade  ourselves  thai  a  union  of  Church  and  State  is 
right,  we  would  siy  that  the  Scotch  deserve  the  greatest 
praise  for  their  valor  and  conscientiousness  in  battling  for 
their  Establishment,  Yet,  during  the  reign  of  Charles  L, 
the  sitting  of  the  long  parliament,  the  protectorate  of 
Cromwell,  and  the  civil  wars,  the  conduct  of  the  Scotch 
Presbyterians  was,  in  many  cas3s,  highly  reprehensible. 
]n  some  things  they  were  as  much  to  blame  as  those  who 
desired  to  oppress  them.  B.sh.op  Burnet  says  :  "  that  the 
King  and  the  Scots  desired  uniformity  in  church  govern- 
ment, but  with  different  views — the  King  was  for  bringing 
ihem  to  the  English  s'andard;  ^yhereas,  the  Scots  intend- 
ed to  bring  the  English  to  theirs."  And  Neal  says,  the 
Scots  insisted  that  '■'■there  should  be  uniforinily  helween  ihe 
two  nations.''^ 

In  the  contest  between  Charles  I,  and  his  Parliament, 
the  Scotch  and  English  Presbyterians  and  the  independ? 
onts  generally  sided  with  the  latter. 

In  1643,  the  Westminster  Assembly  met,  according  to 
nn  ordinance  of  tlje  Lords  and  Commons,  in  parliament. 
This  was  a  convocation,  neither  according  to  Episcopacy 
nr  Presbytery.  The  parliament  chose  all  the  members, 
with  a  view  to  have  tlieir  advice  in  settling  the  doctrine 
and  government  of  the  Church  of  England.  They  ap- 
pointed in  England  thirty  laymen — ten  lords  and  twenty 
commoners — and  qne  hundred  and  twenty-one  divines; 
from  Scotland,  six  laymen  and  five  divines.  More  than 
one  hundred  met.  Some  were  Episcopalians,  some  Eng- 
lish Presbyterians,  some  Scotch  Presbyterians,  some  Eras- 
tians,  and  some  Independents.  Fevy  Episcopalians  ap- 
peared, and  soon  withdrew,  because  of  lay  representation, 
ai.d  the   number   of  men  of  puritanical  stamp,  and  othei 


15 

reasons.  Baxter  says,  that  they  who  composed  the  As* 
Sfmbly  "were  men  of  emineui  learning,  gocUiness,  niiiits- 
te  ial  abilities,  and  fidelity." 

The  Assembly,  nl'tir  a  long  and  animated  debating, 
went  througli.iheir  work.  They  agreed  upon  aContessioii 
of  Faith  and  Form  of  Government,  and  signed  the  Solemn 
League  and  Covenant,  sent  there  from  Scotland,  with 
some  slight  alteriitions.  The  Solemn  Leiigue  and  Cove- 
nant,  though  a  short  docnmenr,  exerted  a  powerful  influ- 
ence, and  proved  eventually  for  England  and  for  Presby- 
terianism,  as  hnpolitic  as  it  was  intolerant.  It  consisted 
of  six  articles,  to  the  second  of  which  there  was  tlie 
greatest  objection.  It  reads  as  follows:  "That  we  shall, 
in  like  manner,  without  respect  of  persons,  endeavor  tiiT) 
e.Mirpation  of  pope ry,  prelacy,  (tiint  is,  church  government 
by  archbishop,  bisliops  ihcir  chancellors  and  commi?sarie>', 
deans,  denns  and  chfipters, archdeacons  and  all  other  eccle- 
siastical officers  depending  on  that  hi(;rarchy)  superstition, 
heresy,  schism,  prufaneness,  and  wliatevcr  shall  be  {v.\\\v\ 
to  be  contrary  to  sound  doctrine,  and  the  power  of  gcdii- 
ness,  lest  we  partake  in  other  men's  sins,  and  thereby  bo 
in  danger  to  receive  of  their  plagues;  and  that  the  Lord 
may  bo  one,  and  his  name  one,  in  the  three  kingdoms." 

This  document  was  subscribed,  not  only  by  the  West- 
minister Assembly,  but  by  the  parliament.  The  Commit- 
tee of  States  in  Scotland,  ordered  it  to  be  suhsrribed  in 
that  kingdom,  on  penalty  of  the  confiscation  of  goods, 
and  rents  and  other  punishments.  All  the  lords  of  the 
Council  were  required  to  sign  it,  and  those  who  did  nor, 
were  declared  enemies  to  religion  ai;d  to  their  king  and 
country.  Ord^'rs  were  issued  to  sc'ze  thiir  goods  and  ap- 
prehend their  persons,  upon  which  tliey  fled  into  England. 
In  England,  all  persons  over  the  age  of  eighteen  were  or- 
dered to  subscribe  it. 

To  the  League  and  Covenant,  there  were  many  and 
weighty  objections.  It  was  regarded  as  a  religious  and  civil 
test  act,  subjecting  any  one  who  did  not  sign  i(,  to  be  pro- 
ceeded against  as  a  ^^maJig7iant^^ — an  enemy  to  religion 
ani  to  his  country.  It  was  also  opposed  by  some,  because 
it  bound  them  to  acts  of  persecution — "//;e  extirpation^^ 
of  tho^e  who  might  be  called  heretics  or  schisviatics. 
From  the  document  we  can  easily  sec,  that  Episcopalians, 


16 

IijJ^'pondcnts  and  others  would  not  be  very  hearty  in  sub- 
scribing it.  But  it  was  subscribed  Ijy  multitudes  of  all 
'•iceJs  and  classes.  Some  took  the  Covenant,  because 
ihey  thought  the  Protestant  religion  in  danger;  some,  in 
"iicdience  to  the  parliament ;  some  because  ihey  wanted 
5  lie  assistance  of  Scotland,  whicli  was  to  be  had  on  no 
'jtiier  terms,  and  so^me  to  avoid  danger, 

h  was  not,  however,  to  be  supposed,  that  in  so  large  an 
Assembly  as  that  of  Westminister,  there  was  a  perfect 
uniformity  of  views  on  all  points.  Neal  says:  "It  is  not 
To  be  wondered,  that  so  many  parties,  with  dillerent  views, 
siiolild  entangle  the  proceedings  of  this  venerable  body, 
and  protract  the  inlcndod  unioti  with  the  Sews.''' 

There  was  some  jarring  when  ihey  came  to  sign  the 
League  and  Covenant.  Dr.  Featly  objected  to  one  article. 
Pr.  Burg'^s  objected  to  several,  and  was  persuaded  to  sub- 
scribe, after  he  hud  been  suspended.  ']"he  Scotch  were 
for  abjuring  episcopacy  sis  unlawful,  but  the  English  di- 
vines were  against  it.  Tlie  English  Commissioners  were 
for  a  civil  league,  but  the  Scotcti  would  have  a  religious 
tnie,  to  which  Bishop  Burnet  says,  "the  English  were 
obliged  to  yield,  taking  care  at  the  same  time  to  leave 
a  door  open  for  a  latitude  of  interpretation."  Thus,  iu 
the  first  article,  they  bound  themselves  to  defend  and  pre- 
serve the  reformation  of  religion,  "in  doctrine,  worship, 
(!i9ci])linc  and  governmen',  according  to  the  wopd  of  God, 
!)p.d  the  example  of  the  bes.t  reformed  churches."  Here 
was  a  latitude,  that  would  suit  all.  The  Episcopalian 
would  have  it  "according  to  the  word  of  C4od."  Uut  the 
Presbyterian  would  goa  little  farther,  and  have  it  also  ac- 
•ording  to  "the  example  of  the  best  reformed  churches." 
Thus,  sij's  Neal,  "the  wise  men  on  both  sides  endeavor- 
ipd  to  outwit  each  other  in  wording  the  articles." 

it  would  indeed  be  something  strange,  if  there  were  not 
different  views  of  doctrine  and  church  government,  among 
men  who  belonged  to  different  sects — Scotch,  English 
Presbyterians,  Erastians,  and  Independents.  The  majori- 
ty, at  first,  were  in  favor  of  such  an  episcopacy  as  they 
supposed  existed  in  the  early  ages  of  the  church,  lut 
for  the  sake  of  the  alliance  with  the  Scotch  they  declared 
for  the  Presbyterial  form. 

On  the  ruoJe  of  baptism^  there  was  at  first   some  dif- 


it 

fereiice.  One  half  wore  for  excluding  dipping.  Tlic 
other  half,  though  they  believed  that  affusion  was  the 
iaioful  mode,  were  unwilling  to  vole  that  dipping  was  not 
a  valid  baptism. 

The  Director}^,  in  reference  to  prayer,  was  not  well  re- 
ceived by  the  Indf  pendents.  Mr.  Fuller  snys:  "the  Inde- 
pendents in  the  Assembly,  were  hardly  persuaded  to  con- 
sent to  it,  for  fear  of  infringing  the  liberty  of  prayer,  yet 
being  admitted  to  qualify  some  things  in  the  preface,  they 
complied." 

On  the  subject  of  the  keys  and  open  cammtinion,  there 
was  difference  of  opinion.  Neal  sajs:  ''The  Presbj-teiians 
were  for  giving  the  power  of  the  keys  into  the  hands  of 
the  ministers  and  ciders,  as  the  Independents  were  to  the 
whole  brotherhood  \  but  L-ghtfoot,  Selden,  Coleman  and 
others,  were  for  an  open  communion  to  whom  the  parli- 
ament were  most  inclinable."  These  latter  were  Eras- 
tians. 

There  were  other  points  about  which  the  members  of 
the  Assembly  differed.  Some  olijected  to  certain  expres- 
sions relative  to  reprobation,  the  imputation  of  Christ's 
obedience,  &c.  But  they  at  last  agreed  upon  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  and  Book  of  Discipline,  as  the  best  thing 
they  could  get,  though  all  were  not  pleased  with  them. 
And  that  Cor/fcssion,  as  since  modified,  certainly  ranks,  in 
the  opinion  of  good  judges,  among  the  best  systems  of 
divinity  ever  published.  Yet,  from  the  history  of  those 
times,  we  learn  that  there  was  no  small  degree  of  dissatis- 
faction about  the  Confession  of  Faith.  Neal,  speaking  of 
the  Baptists,  who  were  not  represented  in  the  Assembly, 
says  :  "These,  joining  with  the  Independents  in  the  point 
of  discipline  and  toleration,  made  them  the  more  considera- 
ble, and  encouraged  their  opposition  to  the  Presbyterians, 
who  were  for  establishing  their  own  discipline,  without  re- 
gard to  such  as  differed  from  them."  In  this,  the  Presbyte- 
rians grealy  erred,  and  manifested  an  intolerant  spirit.  Even 
the  good  Mr.  Baxter  avowed  that,  "he  abhorred  unlimit- 
ed liberty,  or  toleration  of  all." 

The  great  question  about  the  divine  right  of  Presbj  tery 

was    warmly  debated  during  the  sitting  of  the  Assembly, 

as  well    as    aftervv-ards.     Mr.    Coleman    was  bold  against 

this  doctrine.     He  declaimed  against  it,  not  only  in  the 

2=. 


18 

Assembly,  but  in  the  pulpit,  "apprehending  Presbytery 
would  prove  as  arbitrary  and  tyrannical  as  prelacy,  if  it 
came  in  on  the  foot  of  a  divine  cJui/n/' 

Here  also  the  Independents  erred;  for  in  opposing  the 
divine  right  of  Presbytery,  they  advocated  "a  divine 
right  of  their  own  scheme."  But,  in  the  Assembiy,  the 
Presbyterians  carried  their  point,  by  a  large  majority  vot- 
ing for  the  divine  right.  But  the  Independents  entered 
their  dissent  in  writing,  and  complained  to  the  world  "of 
the  unkind  usage  they  met  with  in  the  Assembly;  that  the 
papers  they  offered  were  not  read  ;  that  they  were  not  al- 
lowed to  state  their  own  questions,"  d;c. 

But  when  the  matter  came  before  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, the  Jndependents  were  joined  by  the  Erastians. 
When  the  vote  was  there  taken,  the  Commons  voted 
against  the  divine  right.  Neal  says,  that  "the  disappoint- 
ment of  the  Scotch  Commissioners  and  their  friends,  at 
this  vote  in  parliament,  is  not  to  be  expressed." 

Indeed,  the  entire  book,  as  it  came  from  the  Assembly, 
and  has  been  published  to  the  world,  never  was  approved 
by  the  English  parliament.  'J'he  parliament,  however, 
made  some  concessions  to  the  majority  of  the  Assembly, 
but  with  such  provisios,  that  it  was  evident  they  did  not 
intend  to  part  with  the  sword,  or  subject  the  civil  powers 
to  the  church,  which  was  very  offensive  to  the  Scotch  and 
their  adherents. 

But  when  Parliament  had  now  established  the  Presbyte- 
rial  form  of  government,  no  one  party  of  Christians  was 
satisfied.  The  Episcopalians  and  Independents  were  ex- 
cluded ;  and  because  ths  parliament  would  not  come  fully 
up  to  t!)c  Scotch  notions  of  divine  right,  they  were  not 
pleased.  And  vet  it  is  clear  that  what  was  done,  was  in 
a  great  degree  to  please  the  Scotch  Commissioners.  Bish- 
rp  Kcnnet  observes,  that  "the  settling  Presbytery  was 
supported  by  the  fear  and  love  of  the  Scotch  army,  and 
iliat  when  they  were  gone  home,  it  was  better  managed  by 
the  English  army,  who  were  for  independency  and  a  prin- 
ciple of  toleration."  In  this  divided  state  of  affairs  in 
luigland,  the  Scotch  felt  that  they  held  the  balance  of  pow- 
er, and  they  seemed  determined  to  impose  their  form  of 
government  upon  the  English. 

Here    was   the  grand    error  of  our  Scotch  and  English 


19 

Presbyterian  ancestors.  They  were  not  satisfied  with  any 
thing  short  of  covenarii  uniformity  and  the  divine  right 
of  Presbytery.  Of  this  Mr.  Baxter,  who  was  n  Presby- 
terian, was  in  some  degree  sensible.  He  says,  "that  the 
Prestbyerian  ministers  were  so  Uttle  sensible  of  their  own 
infirmities,  that  they  would  not  agree  to  tolerate  those 
who  were  not  only  toierable,  but  worthy  instruments,  and 
members  in  the  church,  prudent  men,  who  were  for  union 
in  things  necessary,  for  liberty  in  things  unnecessary, 
and  for  charity  in  all," 

Though  the  Independents  were  the  advocates  of  tolera- 
tion, yel  their  foundation  was  not  very  generous.  They 
plead  only  for  the  toleration  of  themselves,  the  Baptists, 
and  such  as  agreed  in  the  fundamentals  of  religion. 

Though  no  two  denominations  were  more  alike  than 
the  Presbyterians  and  Independents,  yet  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  reign  of  Charles  I.,  during  the  revolution,  and  pro- 
tectorate of  Cromwell,  they  had  bitter  strifes,  growing 
out  of  the  doings  of  the  Westminister  Assembly,  attempts 
at  uniformity,  &c.  Sectarian  jealousy  and  rivalry  rose 
high  in  the  days  of  Cromwell,  who  inclined  to  inde- 
pendency. Therefore,  the  rigid  Presbyterians  were  not 
satisfied  with  his  government.  And  when  he  was  suc- 
ceeded by  his  son  Richard,  seeing  no  prospect  of  restor- 
ing the  Covenant  or  obtaining  uniformity,  they  united  with 
the  Royalists  and  Episcopalians  to  restore  Charles  II.  which 
took  place  in  1660.  In  this  the  Scotch  united,  and  sent 
the  Earls  of  Crawford  and  Lauderdale  to  Holland,  "humbly 
to  put  his  majesty  in  mind,  that  the  Kirk  of  Scotland  ex- 
pected protection  upon  the  footing  of  the  Presbyterian 
establishment,  without  indulgence  to  sectaries."  The  pro- 
fligate Charles  II.  agreed  with  the  Presbyterians,  to  come 
to  the  throne  upon  their  terms.  Like  promises  he  made 
to  the  Episcopalians  and  the  Catholics.  Thus,  says  Neal, 
"the  credulous  Presbyterians  were  gradually  drawn  into 
the  snare,  and  made  to  believe,  that  Presbytery  was  to  be 
the  established  government  of  the  Church  of  England, 
under  King  Charles  II."  In  uniting  with  the  Royalists 
and  Episcopalians,  for  the  restoration  of  Charles,  the  most 
solemn  promises  were  made  them.  But,  says  the  histo- 
rian just  quoted,  "the  reader  will  judge  hereafter,  who 
were   most  to   blame,  the  Episcopal  party,  for  breaking 


20 

through  so  many  solemn  vows  and  protestations;  or  llie 
Presbyterians,  tor  bringing  in  the  king  without  a  previous 
treaty,  and  trusting  a  set  of  men,  whom  they  knew  to  be 
their  implacable  enemies.  1  can  think  of  no  decent  ex- 
cuse for  the  former;  and  the  best  apology  that  can  be 
made  for  the  latter  is,  that  most  of  them  lived  long  enough 
to  see  their  error  and  heartily  repent  it." 

With  the  restoration  of  Charles  II.,  the  old  constitution 
was  restored,  together  with  the  Episcopal  Church.  Cy 
establishing  Episcopacy,  the  king  expected  the  great  body 
of  the  nation,  Presbyterians,  Independents,  &c.  would  be 
dissatisfied  ;  that  they  would  demand  a  general  toleration, 
and  thus  he  would  open  the  door  for  the  Roman  Catholics. 
But  soon  the  Presbyterian  ministers  were  made  to  suffer. 
Though  men  of  gravity,  and  far  advanced  in  years,  they 
were  rallied  in  the  pulpits  under  the  opprobrious  names  of 
schismatics  SLud  fanaiics ;  exposed  to  insults;  assaulted 
by  mobs,  and  forced  to  go  in  disguise.  The  old  pena! 
laws  for  non-conformity  were  executed  with  severity. 

The  hardships  and  poverty  attending  non-conformity, 
tempted  some  few  to  conform  contrary  to  their  judgment  ; 
but  the  great  body  of  dissenters  stood  firm  to  their  princi- 
ples. 

The  sufferings  of  the  non-conformists  were  great.  Ma- 
ny were  sent  to  prison  and  to  death.  In  the  history  of 
the  Puritans,  it  is  estimated,  that  between  the  restoration 
and  the  revolution,  seventy  thousand  families  were  ruined, 
and  that  eight  thousand  persons  suffered  death  upon  the 
scaffold  and  in  prison.  This  happened  in  the  short  reign 
of  Charles  II.  It  is  also  stated,  that  ''besides  those  who 
suffered  in  their  own  country,  great  numbers  retired  to  the 
plantations  of  New  England,  Pennsylvania,  and  other 
parts  of  America." 

Such  treatment  of  the  dissenters,  and  from  those  whom 
they  had  helped  into  power,-  was  unaccountable.  In  re- 
ference to  it,  the  Earl  of  Castlemain,  a  Roman  Catl/olic, 
said  :  •'  'Twas  never  known  that  Rome  persecuted,  as  the 
bishops  do,  those  who  adhere  to  the  same  faith  with  them- 
selves, and  established  an  inquisition  against  the  professors 
of  the  strictest  piety  among  themselves." 

But  when,  in  the  reign  of  James  II.,  the  successor  of 
Charles  II.,  the  king  endeavored  to  establish   the  Roman 


21 

Catholic  religion,  and  thus  involved  himsalf  in  a  war  witFr 
the  established  church,  the  dissenters  were  true  to  their 
principles.  The  king  offered  them  all  manner  of  cncour' 
agement,  if  they  would  aid  him.  The  clergy  of  the  es- 
tablishment,-also,  entreated  them  for  assistance  against 
the  king  and  the  Calholic  religion.  The  dissent-ers,  in  de- 
ciding, shewed  a  magnammous  spirit.  Though  they  had^ 
till  that  time,  been  inhumanly  persecuted  by  the  bishops, 
j'et  they  knew,  that  they  and  the  churchmen  agreed  sub- 
stantially in  matters  of  faith,  and  they  were  unwilling  that 
the  great  cause  of  the  reformation  should  perish  for  lack 
of  their  aid.  They,  therefore,  cordially  joined  the  church 
party^  in  consecjuence  of  which  the  wonderful  revolution 
was  effected,  at  little  cost  of  treasure  or  blood.  King 
James  abdicated  the  throne  upon  which  William  and  Ma- 
ry were  placed  in  1689. 

Though  the  bishop  had  made  the  fairest  and  most  solemn 
jiromisesio  the  dissenters,  for  their  assistance,  yet  these 
promises  were  soon  forgotten.  On  this  subject  Neal  says  : 
•'Such  was  the  ungrateful  return  that  these  stubborn 
churchmen  made  to  those  who  had  assisted  them  in  their 
distress  !  For  it  aught  to  stand  upon  record,  that  the 
Church  of  England  had  been  twice  rescued  from  the  most 
imminent  dagger,  by  men  for  whose  satisfaction  they 
would  not  move  a  pin,  nor  abate  a  ceremony  :  first  in  the 
yfcar  1660,  when  the  Preshytericms  restored  the  King  and 
Constitution,,  without  making-  aiuy  terms  for  themselves  ; 
and  now  again  at  the  revolutioji,  when  the  church  lied  for 
succor  to  a  Presbyterian  Prince,  and  was  delivered  by  an 
army  of  fourteen  thousand  Hollanders,  of  the  same  prin- 
ples  with  the  English  Dissenters." 

This  highly  honorable  conduct  of  the  dissenters,  was 
not  forgotten  by  the  lords  in  Parliament  in  1702,  when 
Queen  Anne  came  to  the  throne.  In  a  conference  with 
the  house  of  Commons,  on  the  Occasional  Bill,  they  say  : 
*'That  in  the  last  and  greatest  danger  the  church  was  ex- 
posed to,  the  dissenters  joined  with  her,  with  all  imagina- 
ble zeal  and  sincerity,  against  the  Papists,  their  common 
enemies,  showing  no  prejudice  to  the  church.*' 

During  the  reign  of  King  William,  the  high  church 
party  were  displeased  that  toleration  was  granted  to  the 
disaeaters.,       Thus  says  Neal,:,    *^The  lories   and   high 


22 

church  clergy  enjoyed  tlie  advantages  of  this  glorious  rev- 
olution,  while  tliey  acted  a  most  ungrateful  part  towaids 
their  deliverer.,  and  a  most  unkind  and  ungenerous  one  to 
their  dissenting  brethren." 

While  William  lived,  he  defended  the  di.-senters ;  but 
when  Anne  came  to  the  throne,  the  high  church  party  im- 
mediately brought  in  the  Occasional  Bill  to  cramp  the  toU 
eration  of  the  dissenters,  which  did  not  obtain  the  royal 
assent  till  the  year  1711. 

But  when  George  I.  came  to  the  throne  in  1714,  he  was 
satisfied,  that  the  oppressions,  of  which  the  dissenters 
complained,  were  brought  upon  thein  for  "their  steady  ad- 
herence to  the  Protestant  succession  in  his  illustrious 
house."  And  in  five  years,  he  procured  the  repeal  of  the 
acts  against  toleration,  since  which  time,  no  important 
change  has  taken  place  in  the  statutes  of  England,  on  the 
subject  of  religion.  The  Episcopal  church  is  the  estab- 
lished religion,  but  others  are  tolerated. 

In  Scotland,  since  the  days  of  Knox,  Presbyteriauism 
has  generally  stood  on  a  firm  basis.  It  has  been,  and  is 
now  the  established  religion.  The  Scotch  havealwajs 
shown  an  unwavering  attachment  to  their  discipline,  and  a 
desire  to  have  their  system  prevail.  And  had  they  been 
less  eager  on  this  point,  and  more  tolerant  towards  others, 
their  influence  would  have  been  more  extensively  felt. 
They  erred  in  imposing  Presbyterian'sm  upon  the  Eng- 
lish. And  when  they  had  procured  their  establishment 
in  England,  they  opposed  the  toleration  of  others.  The 
parliament  was  willing  to  grant  toleration  to  the  Inde- 
pendents. Rut  the  rigid  Presbyterians  opposed  and  pre- 
vented it.  Thus  ihcy  alienated  this  body,  and  eventually 
defeated  their  own  cause;  so  that  the  Prcsbyteiians  in 
England,  suon  became  comparatively  a  small  body.  And, 
as  to  the  Scotch,  we  would  look  with  admiration  upon 
their  church,  were  it  not  for  their  attachment  to  the  Solemn 
League  and  Covenant,  and  the  divine  right  of  Presbytery, 
and  their  alliance  with  the  civil  power. 

The  Presbyterians  or  Huguenots  of  France,  never  had 
the  aid  of  civil  power,  but  were  often  sorely  persecuted. 
They  generally  enjoyed  some  toleration,  till  the  horrible 
St.  Bartholomew  massacre,  in  1572,  which  resulted  in  the 
destruction  of  at  least    thirty   thousand   Protestants.     In 


23 

1598,  in  the  reign  of  Henry  IV.  their  civil  rights  were  se- 
cured by  the  edict  of  Nantes.  During  tha  reign  of  Lou- 
is XIV.  they  were  again  greatly  persecuted;  and  by  the 
revocation  of  the  edict  of  Nantes,  in  1685,  many  thou- 
sands were  forced  to  make  their  escape  to  other  parts  of 
Europe,  and  to  America.  Since  which  time,  the  Hugue- 
nots in  France  have  lived  the  subjects  of  alarm  and  per- 
secution, never  enjoying  a  full  and  free  toleration,  except 
during  the  great  revolution  under  Napoleon. 

When  we  look  back,  two  or  three  centuries  ago,  to  Vae 
history  of  the  church,  in  any  of  ils  parts,  we  see  that  the 
principles  of  a  general  toleration  and  equal  rights  were 
not  understood.  Nor  are  these  principles,  at  the  present 
day,  embraced  and  cherished,  except  in  the  United  States. 
And  when  we  wonder  at  the  persecutions  of  former  times, 
we  should  recollect  that  they  were  times  of  violence  and 
intolerance.  Rudeness  often  characterized  the  persecuted 
as  well  as  the  persecutor.  Take  one  specimen  two  hun- 
dred years  ago.  Mr.  Prynne  wrote  a  book,  in  which  he 
uses  such  language  as  this,  in  speaking  of  the  ladies  at 
pourt,  and  of  the  nobility  :  "Our  English  ladies,  shorn 
and  frizzled  iiiadams,  have  lost  their  modesty  ;  that  the 
devil  is  only  honored  by  dancing"  &c.  For  this  book  he 
was  prosecuted.  The  Earl  of  Dorset,  in  a  speech  against 
him,  says  :  "1  will  never  set  him  at  liberty,  no  more  than 
a  plagued  man,  or  a  mad  dog.  He  is  fit  to  live  in  dens 
with  such  beasts  of  prey  as  wolves  and  tigers,  like  him- 
self; therefore  I  condemn  him  to  perpetual  imprisonment ; 
and  for  corporeal  punishment,  1  would  have  him  branded 
in  the  forehead,  slit  in  the  nose,  and  have  his  ears  chopt 
off."  And  this  was  only  a  part  of  the  penalty  inflicted. 
His  imprisonment,  however,  was  not  perpetual.  Surely 
these  were  times  of  violence,  when  a.  savage  barbarism 
was  vastly  more  popular  than  in  our  day.  And,  it  being 
an  age  of  intolerance,  conscientious  men,  no  doubt,  thought 
they  were  doing  God  service,  by  persecuting  those  who 
difTered    from  them. 

But  in  the  United  States,  all  sects  now  profess  to  have 
abandoned  their  persecuting  principles.  When  they  sat- 
isfy the  public  mind  that  this  is  so,  the  past  ought  to  be 
forgotten  and  forgiven.  In  other  parts  of  the  world,  there 
are  yet  church  establishments.     And   wheiever,  at  this 


24 

day,  a  church  sits  securely  in  the  lapof  civil  power,  there 
are  still  to  be  found  the  principles  of  intolerance.  And 
wherever  a  church  claims  to  be  independent  of,  or  superi- 
or to  the  civil  power,  there  persecution  is  to  be  found. 

But  the  Episcopalians,  in  the  United  States,  have  no  ec- 
clesiastical connection  with  the  Episcopal  establishment 
of  England,  and  they  profess  to  be  the  friends  of  equal 
rights.  The  Presbyterians,  in  the  United  States,  have  no 
ecclesiastical  connection  with  the  Presbyterian  establish- 
ment of  Scotland,  and  they  profess  to  have  abandoned 
those  arbitrary  and  intolerant  principles,  to  which  the 
Scotch  have  generally  adhered.  Such  professions  are 
right,  and  worthy  of  confidence,  whilst  strengthened  by  a 
corresponding  practice. 

However,  where  there  is  no  church  establishment, 
there  is  one  feature  in  some  sects,  that  is  calculated  to 
sow  deeply  and  widely  the  seeds  of  intolerance,  viz.: — the 
divine  right — a  conceit  that,  notwithstanding  according 
to  the  civil  laiv  they  are  on  an  equality  with  other  sects, 
yet,  according  to  divine  lazv,  they  are  the  church  ;  others 
are  out  of  the  church,  heretics  and  schismatics,  becausu 
they  are  not  of  their  party.  Of  one  thing,  however,  we 
may  feel  confident,  that  wherever  a  sect  has  no  connection 
with  civil  power,  and  abandons  her  divine  right  notions, 
such  a  sect  is  not  to  be  feared. 

From  these  brief  sketches  of  Presbyterianism,  the  rea- 
der will  perceive,  that  Presbyterians  do  not  claim  to  have 
h&Qn  an  infallible  church,  it  ought,  however,  to  be  re- 
membered, that  Presbyterianism  in  the  New  World,  is 
not  what  it  is  in  the  Old   World. 

It  is  our  purpose  to  show,  in  these  sketches,  that 
the  unlovely  features  of  Scotch  Presbyterianism — Church 
and  State  ;  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  ;  Divine  Right, 
4*c. — have  never  pertained  to  American  Presbyterianism. 
Where  those  brethren  will  land,  who  have  commenced  a 
sort  of  relrogade  reformation,  is  for  future  development. 
They  have  nothing  to  say  in  favor  of  the  tolerant  and  li- 
beral principles  upon  which  American  Presbyterianism 
was  founded,  but  seem  to  have  a  strange  "affinity"  for  the 
Scotch  system,  as  the  only  perfect  model  of  Presbyterian- 
ism.    But  of  this  hereafter. 


( '25  ) 


CHAPTER  II. 


UxXION  OF  PRESBYTERIANS  AND  CONGREGATIONAL- 
ISTS-PRIMITIVE  AND  LIBERAL  POLICY  OF  AMEKI 
CAN  PRESBYTERIANISM. 


In  the  history  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  notice  its  connection  with  the  Independents  or  Con- 
gregationalists.  The  two  bodies,  in  England  and  Amer- 
ica, have  generally  adopted  the  same  Confesssion  of 
Faith;  and  when  their  jealousies,  alienations  and  strifes 
about  other  matters  were  healed,  they  have  been  ready  to 
adopt  plans  of  correspondence  and  union. 

The  first  effort  at  union  in  England,  worthy  of  notice, 
was  about  the  year  1653.  At  first  the  "articles  of  eon- 
cord"  were  drawn  up  so  as  to  embrace  Episcopalians. 
But  the  associations  were  attended  mostly  by  the  Congre- 
gationalists  and  Presbyterians.  We  find  th.e  following; 
statement  in  Neal's  history  :  "The  chief  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian and  Independent  divines,  who  v/ere  weary  of  divis- 
ions, and  willing  to  strengthen  each  others  hands,  united  in 
these  assemblies,  though  the  exasperated  prelatists,  th;- 
more  rigid  Presbyterians  and  severer  sort  of  Independent?, 
kept  at  a  distance.  But  many  remarkable  advantages  at- 
tended these  associations  ;  they  opened  and  preserved  ;i 
friendly  correspondence  among  the  ministers,"  &;c. 

But  towards  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century,  th.- 
two  bodies  effected  a  firmer  union.  Hence  we  learn,  that 
"on  the  6th  day  of  April,  1691,  the  Presbyterian  and  Con- 
gregational denominations  of  christians,  in  Great  Britain, 
met  at  Stepney,  and  there,  by  the  blessing  of  Alm'igiity 
God,  after  talking  over  their  differences  and  agreements, 
consummated  a  union  of  the  two  denominations,  by  a- 
dopting  what  was  called  the  heads  of  agreement,  embracing 
3 


26 

:i  few  cardinal  principles,  which  were  to  govern  them  in 
their  fraternal   intercourse." 

Presbyterians  and  Congrcgationalists,  with  this  spirit, 
ilying  from  intolerance  and  persecution  in  the  Old  World, 
would  find  liitle  difficulty  in  uniting,  when  sharing  in  the 
toils  and  privations  of  a  settlement  in  the  wilds  of  Amer- 
ica. The  Presbyterians,  who  settled  in  the  New  England 
Slates,  generally  united  with  the  Congrcgationalists;  and 
I  he  Congreorcitionalists,  who  settled  in  the  middle  and  South- 
v.rn  States,  united  with  the  Presbyterians. 

In  the  early  settlement  of  this  country,  the  Scotch  Prea- 
bylerians  came  into  these  arrangements  somewhat  reluc- 
mnly.  They  had  not  favored  the  plans  of  union  between 
the  two  denominations  in  the  Old  World.  Many  of  them 
v/cre  devotedly  attached  to  the  measures  of  the  Church 
of  Scotland,  a  church  that  was  long  disposed  to  adhere  to 
licr  arbitrary  principles, as  will  appear  from  the  fact,  that 
as  late  as  1712,  during  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne,  they 
i;ubiished  an  act  or  testimony  against  religious  toleration. 

It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  Scotch  Presbyterians,  Eng- 
lish Presbyterians,  Huguenots,  Independents,  &c.  commg 
from  so  many  diiTerent  countries — England,  Scotland, 
Wales,  Ireland,  France,  Germany,  &C.. — could  unite  in 
any  rigid  system.  The  result  was  a  modified  Congrega- 
tionalism in  New  England,  and  a  modified  system  of  Pres- 
cyterianism  south  and  west  of  New  England. 

As  tbe  result  of  the  plan  of  union  of  1091,  between  the 
l^rosbyterlans'  and  Congrcgationalists  of  England,  Mr. 
McKemie,  a  native  of  Ireland,  was  sent  as  a  missionary 
TO  America.  He  with  others  in  1704  or  1705,  formed  the 
first  Presbytery  in  America — the  Presbytery  of  Phila- 
delphia. This  Presbytery  was  composed  partly  of  Pres- 
liyterians  and  partly  of  Congregationalists.  Mr.  An- 
drews, the  first  pastor  of  the  first  church  in  Philadelphia, 
was  a  Congregational  Presbyterian.  And  that  church  was 
sixty-four  years  without  any  ruling  elders,  though  under 
the  care  of  the  Presbytery. 

Thus  it  appears,  that  Presbyterianism  was  introduced 
into  this  country  from  England,  and  not  from  Scotland, 
and  upon  the  foundation  of  an  enlightened  and  liberal  tol- 
eration. 

The  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  was  formed  upon  the 


27 

liberal  principles,  which  controled  the  united  body  in  Eng- 
land. The  small  number  of  churches,  the  sparseuess  of 
population,  and  difficulty  of  supporting  the  gospel,  \vou!il 
contribute  to  such  a  result.  When  tiie  first  Presbytery  was 
formed,  it  was  composed  of  seven  ministers.  One  of  thcso 
was  Mr.  Andrews,  a  graduate  of  Cambridge,  and  a  native 
of  New  England.  Of  the  seven,  it  is  not  clear  that  more 
than  three  of  them  were  Presbyterians  originally.  It  is 
however  certain  that  Congregational  materials  were  the. 
most  numerous.  In  1701,  Massacliusetts  had  eighty-six 
ministers;  and  in  1713,  Connecticut  had  "forty-six  church- 
es which  had  been  illuminated  by  about  ninety  minis- 
ters." At  that  time,  therefore,  in  the  history  of  the  Amer- 
ican church,  the  Congregationalists  composed  a  much  lar- 
ger body  than  the  Presbyterians. 

And  from  the  fact  of  their  emigration  South  and  West, 
they  would  exercise  no  small  influence  in  the  Presbyterian 
church.  As  early  as  1640,  the  New  Haven  colony  "made 
a  large  purchase  on  both  sides  of  the  Delaware  Bay  and 
River."  "This  purchase  was  made  with  a  view  to  trade, 
and  for  the  settlement  of  churches  in  gospel  order  and  pu- 
rity." The  settlements  were  made  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  New  Haven,  and  "in  close  combination  with  that  col- 
ony in  all  their  fundamental  articles." 

The  intercourse  between  the  two  denominations  was 
fraternal  and  liberal.  The  assistance  which  they  afford- 
ed each  other,  was  often  substantial.  When  the  Presby- 
tery of  Philadelphia,  in  1709,  applied  to  Sir  Edmund  Har- 
rison, one  of  the  dissenters  in  London,  for  aid,  they  re- 
(juested  the  Rev.  Ministers  of  Boston,  to  join  with  them  in 
"imploring  help  and  assistance  for  promoting  the  inter- 
ests of  our  glorious  Lord."  And  the  Congregationuliats 
wrote  in  their  behalf. 

In  1710,  the  first  Synod  was  formed — the  Synod  of  Phil- 
adelphia— upon  the  same  liberal  principles  of  a  modified 
Presbyterianism.  Fourteen  years  after  this,  Mr.  An- 
drews, in  a  letter  to  Rev.  Mr.  Prince,  of  Boston,  says  : 
"We  all  call  ourselves  Presbyterians;  none  pretending  to 
be  called  Congregationalists" — "And  the  ministers  are  all 
Presbyterian,  though  mostly  from  New  England."  (See 
Hill's  History,  p.  105.) 

Those  who  had  been  reared  in  the  church  of  Scotland, 


28 

wcvb  not  generally  pleased  with  those  liberal  principles 
which  resulted  in  the  union  of  Presbyterians  ond  Con- 
gregationalists,  and  the  founding  of  the  American  church 
iipon  tlie  basis  of  a  modified  Presbyterianism.  Soon  after 
the  formation  of  the  Synod,  murmurs  of  dissatisfaction, 
from  the  more  rigid  Scotch,  were  heard.  The  ministers 
from  Scotland,  who,  to  use  the  words  of  Dr.  Miller,  "were 
desirous  to  carry  into  eflect  the  system  to  whicii  they  hud 
heen  accustomed  in  all  its  extent  and  strictness,"  began  to 
insist,  that  the  church  in  this  country  should  adopt  the  ex- 
i:lusive  policy  of  the  church  of  Scotland.  In  that  coun- 
try they  adopted  the  whole  of  the  Old  VV'est minster  Con- 
llssion,  which  made  it  the  duty  of  the  cicihnagistrate  "to 
take  order,  that  unity  and  peace  be  preserved  in  the 
church,  thai  the  truth  of  God  be  kept  pure  and  entice, 
that  all  blasphemies  and  heresies  be  suppressed,  all  cor- 
ruptions and  abuses  in  worship  and  discipline  prevented  or 
reformed,  and  all  the  ordinances  of  God  duly  settled,  ad- 
ministered and  observed."  And  according  to  the  Scotch 
mode  of  adopting  the  Confession  of  Faith,  a  minister  be- 
longing to  the  established  church  of  Scotland,  could  regard 
no  man  as  a  minister,  who  had  not  received  license  from 
one  of  their  Preshyteries,  and  subscribed  a  formula,  which 
would  bind  him  to  adhere  to  the  established  church,  with 
its  Confession,  its  entire  system  of  Government,  and  its 
Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  which  Covenant  would  bind 
}iin)  to  endeavor  "the  extirpation  of  popery,  prelacy,  su- 
jierstitiur,  heresy,  schism,"  &c.  These  were  the^princi- 
jiles  of  the  rigid  Scotch  "in  all  its  extent  and  strictness." 
And  it  is  not  surprising,  that  such  an  adoption  should 
meet  v.'ith  opposition  in  founding  the  American  Presby- 
terian Church, 


(^^) 


CHAPTER  IIL 

CONTROVERSY  AND  SCHISM  OF  1711. 


As  soon  as  the  Presbyterian  church  began  to  prosper 
and  extend  its  infiuence,  men's  views  began  to  confl.ct. 
The  two  extreme  parties  in  this  controversy,  were  the 
favorers  of  the  Scotish  system  and  tliose  who  had  im- 
bibed the  more  liberal  principles  of  the  Congregationalists. 
The  strength  of  the  parties,  the  reasons  of  their  union, 
their  differences  and  agreements  are  briefly  set  forth  by 
Dr.  Green,  in  his  Advocate  of  August  183 i.  He  siys  : 
"Indeed  there  were  circumstances  in  the  early  history  o-f 
our  church,  which  so  powerfully  urged  the  Presbyterians 
and  Congregationalists  to  a  union,  that  we  do  not  wonder 
it  was  sought,  nor  think  that  we  ought  to  attach  blame  to 
those  who  endeavored  to  effect  it.  The  Presbyterians,  at 
first,  were  but  a  handful,  and  naturally  wished  to  increase 
their  strength  by  any  feasible  alliance.  The  Congrega- 
tionalists, although  more  numerous,  having  previously 
established  themselves  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  British 
provinces,  and  although  not  favorable  to  the  settlement  of 
l^resbyterians  among  themselves,  yet  were  willing  to  form 
a  coalition  which  would  manifestly  extend  their  influence. 
'J'he  mother  country  was  also,  at  the  time,  hostile  to  both 
these  sects.  She  liad,  by  persecution  at  home,,  driven 
both  into  exile,  and  even  in  exile,  was  far  from  regard- 
ing them  with  a  propitious  eye.  To  strengthen  each 
other  against  a  common,  adverse  and  powerful  influence, 
was  certainly  an  operative  motive  to  conjoint  action,^  and 
to  the  amalgamation  in  which  it  resulted.  Such  a  result, 
moreover,  seemed  to  be  recommended  by  an  entire  agree- 
ment of  the  parties  in  their  doctrinal  theology.  Botli 
Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists  were,  at  this  time,, 
strict  Calvinists.  They  wure  both,  and  we  believe  equaflv 
3^ 


nttficlicd  to  the  doctrinal  creed  of  the  Westminister  Di- 
vines, especially  to  the  summary  of  it  which  is  contain- 
i;d  in  the  Shorter  Catechism,  k  was  irj  regard  to  cUurch 
government,  or  the  system  of  ecclesiastical  order  luid  diS' 
ripline,  that  the  parties  difl'ered.  The  attempts  to  com- 
promise this  difference^  produced  the  difficulties  and  dis- 
scntions  in  the  early  periods  of  our  church." 

These  are  very  correct  afid  valuable  items  of  history, 
especially  as  coming  from  Dr.  Green,  a  thorough  Old 
t^chooi  man;  and  going  to  shew  the  strength  of  parties^ 
the  mild  and  moderate  character  of  primitive,  American 
Presbyterlanism,  &c. 

Dr.  Miller  says,  that  in  the  organization  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church  in  this  country,  they  "had  not  formally 
nad  publicly  adopted  any  particular  confession  of  faith,  of 
ecclesiastical  constitution.  They  acted  under  a  plan, 
rather  understood  than  officially  ratified."  This  alarmed 
the  more  rigid  of  the  Scotch  Presbyterians.  Dr.  Green 
says:  "In  the  year  1721,  we  have  the  lirst  indication  of 
trie  general  controversy."  In  1724  several  ministers  from 
Scotland  began  to  insist  upon  a  subscription  to  the  old 
Westminister  Confession  of  Faith,  which,  as  it  then  was, 
,would  give  to  the  civil  magistrate  the  power  of  persecu- 
ting God^s  people,  and  bind  the  ministers  to  the  extirpa- 
tion of  heresy  and  schism.  The  descendants  of  the  Puri- 
tans regarded  this  as  an  attempt  to  introduce  the  entire 
system  of  Scotch  Presbyterianism,  under  which  toleration 
h:ui  been  denied  their  forefathers. 

These  contentions  led  to  the  Adopting  Act  of  the  Synod 
cf  Philadelphia  in  1729.  The  act  embodied  the  liberal  prin- 
ciples upon  which  Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists 
liad  united.     It  is  as  follows  : 

"The  committee  brought  in  an  overture  upon  the  atTair 
of  the  Confession,  which,  after  long  debating  upon  it,  was 
agreed  to  in  Iiaec  verha.  Although  the  synod  do  not  clain> 
or  pretend  to  any  authouity  of  imposing  our  faith  upon 
ether  men's  consci  'nccs,  but  do  profess  our  just  disatisfao- 
fion  with,  and  abhorrence  of  such  impositions,  and  do  not 
only  disclaim  all  legislat-ve  power  and  authority  in  the 
church,  being  willing  to  receive  one  another,  as  Christ 
li&th  received  us,  to  the  glory  of  God,  and  admit  to  fellow- 
ship  in  such  ordinances,  all  such  as  we  have  grounds  to 


31 

believe  Christ  will  at  last  admit  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ; 
yet  we  are  undoubtedly  obliged  to  take  care  that  the  fuith 
once  delivered  to  the  saints,  be  kept  pure  and  uncorrupt 
among  us,  and  so  handed  dovvn  to  our  posterity  ;  and  do 
therefore  agree,  thatall  the  ministers  of  this  synod,  or  that 
shall  hereafter  be  admitted  into  this  synod,  shall  declare 
iheir  agreement  in,  and  approbation  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  with  the  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms  of  the  As- 
sembly of  divines  at  Westminister,  as  being  i?i  all  essen." 
tiai  end  necessary  articles,  good  forms  and  sound  words, 
and  systems  of  Christian  doctrine,  and  do  also  adopt  the 
said  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechism  as  the  confession 
of  our  faith.  And  we  do  also  agree,  that  the  Presbj  teries 
within  our  bounds  shall  always  take  care  not  to  admit  any 
candidate  of  the  ministry,  into  the  exercise  of  the  sacrf  d 
function,  but  what  declares  his  agreement  in  opinion  irilh 
all  the  essential  and  necessary  articles  of  said  Conftssioj) 
either  by  subscribing  the  said  Confession  of  Faith  and 
Catechisms,  or  by  a  verbal  declaration  of  their  assent 
thereto,  as  such  ministers  or  candidates  shall  think  best. 
And  in  case  any  minister  of  this  synod,  or  any  candidate 
for  the  ministry,  shall  have  any  scruple  with  lespect  to 
any  article  or  articles  of  said  Confession  of  Faith  or 
Catechisms,  he  shall,  at  the  time  of  his  making  such  «le- 
claration,  declare  his  sentiments  to  the  Presbytery  or 
Synod,  who  shall,  notwithstanding,  admit  him  to  the  exer- 
cise of  the  ministry  within  our  bounds,  and  to  ministerial 
communion,  if  either  Synod  or  Presbytery  shall  judge  his 
scruple  or  mistake  to  be  only  about  articles  not  essential 
and  necessary  in  doctrine,  worship,  or  government.  But 
if  the  Synod  or  Presbytery  shall  judge  6uch  ministers  or 
candidates  erroneous  in  essential  and  necessary  articles  of 
faith,  the  Synod  or  Presbytery  shall  declare  them  incapa- 
ble of  communion  with  them.  And  the  Synod  do  solemn- 
ly agree,  that  none  of  us  will  traduce,  or  use  any  oppro- 
bious  terms  of  those  that  differ  from  us  in  those  extra-es- 
sential, and  not  necessary  points  of  doctrine,  but  treat 
them  with  the  same  friendship,  kindness  and  brotherly 
love,  as  if  they  had  not  differed  from  us  in  such  senti- 
ments." 

It  is  not  inferred  from  this  act,  that  the  Synod  was  too 
latitudinarian,  or  that  it  was  their  purpose  to  tolerate  every 


species  of  error,  as  some  would  conjecture,  "from  high 
Arianism  to  low  Arminianism."  They  were  orthodo:< 
men.  To  guard  against  misapprehension,  on  the  after' 
noon  of  the  same  day,  they  say  by  way  of  explanation, 
■"•All  the  ministers  of  the  Synod,  except  one  that  declared 
himself  not  prepared,"  "after  proposing  all  the  scruples- 
any  of  them  had  to  make  against  any  of  the  articles  and 
expressions  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  Larger  and 
Shorter  Catechisms,  of  the  Assembly  of  Divines  of  West- 
minister; and  we  unanimously  agreed  in  the  solution  of 
those  scruples,  in  declaring  the  said  Confession  and  CatC' 
chism  to  be  the  Confession  of  their  faith,  except  only  some 
clauses  in  the  20th,  and  23rd  chapters,  concerning  which 
clauses,  the  Synod  do  unanimously  declare,  that  they  do 
not  receive  those  articles  in  any  such  sense  as  to  suppose 
the  civil  magistrate  hath  a  oontroling  power  over  Synod.'*, 
with  respect  to  their  exercise  of  tlieir  ministerial  aulhori-- 
ty  ;  or  power  to  persecute  any  for  their  religion,  or  in  any 
case  contrary  to  the  Protestant  succession  to  the  throne  of 
Great  Britain." 

But  the  adopting  act  did  not  satisfy  the  friends  of  a 
rigid  subscription.  By  this  act,  Dr.  Green  says,  that  the 
mother  Synod  "Congregationalized  the  church,"  and  that 
"-they  left  nothing  of  Presbyterianism  behind  but  the 
name;  so  that  it  become  nothing  but  a  Presbyterio  Con- 
gregational church."  Some  of  these  strict  Presbyterians 
immediately  left  their  former  connection  and  joined  the 
secession  church,  in  consequence  of  this  art. 

Efforts  were  made  to  stay  this  dissatisfaction  and  seces- 
sion. New  Castle  Presbytery,  the  next  year,  in  Septem- 
ber 1730,  adopted  the  following  minute  :  "Whereas,  divers 
j)crsons  belonging  to  several  of  our  congregations  have 
been  stumbled  and  oflended,  at  a  certain  niinute  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  last  Synod,  contained  in  a  printed  let- 
ter, because  of  some  ambiguous  words  or  expressions, 
contained  therein  ;  being  willing  to  remove,  as  far  as  in  us 
lies,  all  causes  and  occasions  of  jealousies  and  offences  irr 
relation  to  that  affiir,  and  openly  before  God  and  the 
world,  to  testify,  that  we  all  with  one  accord,  firmly  adhere 
to  that  same  sound  doctrine,  whici)  we  and  our  forefathers- 
were  trained  up  in." 


33 

Two  years  after  this,  Donnegal  Presbytery  adopted  a 
similar  minute. 

These  movements  were  calculated  to  akrm  the  Synod. 
In  consequence  of  the  adopting  act,  they  saw  some  of 
their  members  going  off  to  the  seceders,  and  no  less  than 
two  of  their  Presbyteries  passing  resolutions  to  counteract 
their  liberal  policy.  The  result  was,  that  the  dissatisfied 
party  raised  such  a  clamor  against  the  adopting  act,  that 
at  last  the  old  Synod  quailed  before  it.  And  in  1736  the 
Synod  "do  declare,  that  inasmuch  as  we  understand  that 
many  persons  of  our  persuasions,  both  more  lately  and 
formerly,  have  been  offended  with  some  expressions,  or 
distinctions,  in  the  first  preliminary  act  of  the  Synod, 
contained  in  the  paper  relating  to  our  receiving  or  adopt- 
ing the  Westminister  Confession  and  Catechisms,  &c.  ; 
that  in  order  to  remove  said  offence,  and  all  jealousies 
that  have  arisen,  or  may  arise  in  any  of  our  people's 
minds  on  account  of  said  distinctions  and  expressions,  the 
Synod  dolh  declare,  that  the  Synod  have  adopted,  and  do 
still  adhere  to  the  Westminister  Confession,  Catechisms, 
and  Directory  without  the  least  variation  or  alteration, 
and  without  any  regard  to  said  distinctions." 

This  act  was  as  little  relished  by  the  liberal  party,  as 
the  adopting  act  was  by  the  rigid  party.  And  it  rapidly 
paved  the  way  for  the  schism  which  occurred   in  1741. 

(3ther  causes  conspired  to  hasten  the  schism  of  the 
church.  The  two  parties  differed  on  the  subject  of  revi- 
vals. The  great  revival  of  1735,  which  commenced  un- 
der President  Edwards,  and  under  Mr.  Whitfield  and 
others  in  1740,  gave  rise  to  some  departures  from  truth 
and  sobriety.  The  "Old  Side"  were  the  opposers  of  the 
revival  ;  and  the  "New  Side"  its  ardent  friends.  The 
opposers  wrote  and  circulated  pamphlets  to  suppress  the 
revival. 

There  was  also  some  difference  between  the  parties 
about  vital  godliness,  and  qualifications  for  the  ministry. 
The  New  Sido  men  charged  the  Old  Side  v^^ith  caring  too 
much  about  literary  qualifications,  and  not  enough  about 
experimental  religion.  Dr.  Miller  says,  "The  cordial  and 
active  friends  of  this  revival,  generally  coincided  with  that 
portion  of  the  Presbvterian  church,  which  was  most  friend- 
ly to  ardent  piety,  and  least  zealous  for  Presbyterial  ordcr> 


34 

confessions  of  faith  and  literary  qualifications  in  the  minis- 
try." 

All  these,  and  perhaps  other  conflicting  views  alienated 
the  feelings  of  brethren  from  each  other.  Dr.  Miller 
says:  "Old  Side  men  regarded  their  opponents  as  a  body 
of  extravagant  and  ignorant  enthusiasts ;  while  the  New 
Side  men  regarded  the  Old  Side  men  as  a  set  of  pharisaical 
formalists." 

These  dissentions  about  qualifications  for  the  ministry, 
revivals  of  religion,  vital  godliness,  and  the  manner  of  sub- 
scribing the  old  Confession  of  Faith,  resulted  in  the  great 
schism  of  1741. 

Dr.  Miller,  an  Old  School  man,  in  speaking  of  that  schism, 
censures  both  sides  ;  the  New  Side  too  severely.  He  says: 
'•The  Old  Side  was  wrong  in  opposing  the  revival  of  reli- 
gion under  the  ministry  of  Whitfield  and  his  friends;  and 
in  contending  as  they  did  at  first,  against  examination  on 
vital  pieltj :  while  the  New  Side  were  as  plainly  wrong 
in  frequently  violating  that  ecclesiastical  order  which  they 
had  stipulated  to  observe ;  in  undervaluing  literary  quali- 
fications for  the  holy  ministry;  and  in  giving  countenance, 
for  a  time,  to  some  real  extravagancies  and  disorders  which 
attended  the  revival  of  religion."  That  the  New  Side  did 
not  undervalue  literature,  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that 
they  immediately  built  up  New  Jersey  College.  And 
in  regard  to  revivals,  allowance  can  be  made  for  the  cen- 
sure, when  it  is  recollected  that  the  '■'■anxious  seal'''  and 
all  such  measures  are  ranked  by  Dr.  Miller  among  "e«- 
travagancies  and  disorders.^' 

At  the  tin^e  of  the  schism,  there  was  but  one  Synod — 
that  of  Philadelphia.  In  1745,  the  Synod  of  New  York 
was  organized,  embracing  the  New  Side  men. 

One  of  the  first  efforts  of  the  New  Side  party,  was  to 
build  up  Now  Jersey  College,  which  was  permanently  lo- 
cated at  Princeton,  in  1757.  The  college  had  difficulties 
and  opposition  to  encounter.  At  first  it  languished  for  want 
of  funds.  But  in  1753,  the  Synod  of  New  York,  at  the 
request  of  ihe  Trustees  of  the  college,  sent  Rev.  Samuel 
Davies  and  Rev.  Gilbert  Tennent  to  England  to  solicit  aid. 
They  were  successful.  The  liberal  benefactions  received, 
placed  the  college  in  a  respectable  condition.  (See  Quarter- 
ly Register,  Vol.  3:  No.  4.  p.  273.} 


35 

From  President  Davies,  while  on  thi3  tour,  we  also  learn, 
that  among  the  New  Side  men,  during  the  schism,  a  rigid 
sub'^cription  of  the  Confessionof  Faith  wo.s  not  demanded. 
When  interrogated,  in  England,  on  this  subject,  Mr.  Da- 
vies  says:  "I  replied  that  we  allowed  the  candidate  to  men- 
tion his  objections  to  any  article  in  the  Confession,  and  tho 
judicatures  judge  whether  the  articles  objected  against  were 
essential  to  Christianity;  and  if  they  judged  they  were  not, 
they  would  admit  the  candidate,  notwithstanding  his  ob- 
jections." 

It  will  be  remembered,  that  this  was  the  principle  upon 
which  tho  American  Presbyterian  church  was  founded — 
this  was  the  spirit  of  the  adopting  act  of  1729 — this  the 
policy  of  the  New  Side  in  that  day,  and  for  more  than  this, 
no  party  has  since  ever  contended. 

But  to  return  to  our  history.  Seven  years  after  the  di- 
vision, efforts  were  made  to  unite  the  two  Synods.  But 
these  efforts  did  not  succeed  till  1758— =-the  parties  having 
been  separate  for  seventeen  years. 

Then  the  Synods  united,  under  the  name  of  the  Synod 
of  New  York  and  Philadelphia.  They  agreed  to  adopt 
the  Confession  of  Faith,  as  it  had  been  adopted  in  1729, 
disclaiming  a\\ '^legislative  ]wtoer,^^  "as  being,  hi  all  es- 
sential and  necessary  articles,  good  forms  and  sound 
words."  This  was,  therefore,  a  union  upon  what  is  gen- 
erally called  the  liberal  prmciples  of  American  Presby- 
terianism. 

In  1766,  eight  years  after  the  union  of  the  Synods,  the 
Presbyterian  Church  proposed  a  convention  of  delegates 
of  the  pastors  of  the  Presbyterian  and  Congregational 
churches  in  America,  which  met  annually,  until  it  was 
interrupted  by  the  American  Revolution. 

In  1788,  the  General  Assembly  was  organized.  Some 
alterations  were  then  made  in  the  old  Westminster  Con- 
fession, making  it  more  suitable  to  the  views  of  the  en- 
tire church.  Two  years  after  this,  the  Assembly  "being 
peculiarly  desirous  to  renew  and  strengthen  every  bond  of 
union  between  brethren  so  nearly  agreed  in  doctrine  and 
forms  of  worship,  as  the  Presbyterian  and  Congregational 
churches  evidently  are,  do  resolve,  that  the  Congregation- 
al churches  in  New  England  be  invited  to  renew  their 
annual  convention  with  the  clergy  of  the  Presbyteriaa 


S6 

church."  This  led  to  the  plans  of  correspondence  with 
the  Congregational  churches  of  New  England,  which  are 
yet  in  existence,  and  which  provide,  that  "every  preacher 
traveling  from  one  body  to  the  other,  and  properly  recom- 
mended, shall  be  received  as  an  authorized  preacher  of 
tlie  gospel,  and  cheerfully  taken  under  the  patronage  of 
the  Presbytery  or  Association,  within  whose  bounds  he 
shall  find  employment  as  a  preacher." 

In  1799,  the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania  passed  an  act 
incorporating  "The  Trustees  of  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  Siaies  of  Ame- 
rica," 


CHAPTER  IV. 


THE  POLICY  OF  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH  IN  THE 
STRUGGLE  FOR  NATIONAL  INDEPENDENCE. 


Though  in  ecclesiastical  matters,  there  had  been  a  rigid 
and  a  liberal  party  in  the  Presbyterian  church  in  the  Uni- 
ted States,  yet  in  civil  matters,  the  whole  church  acted  the 
part  of  the  most  ardent  friends  of  liberty,  in  the  most  per- 
ilous times  of  our  history.  The  Episcopal  church  was  the 
established  church  in  the  mother  country.  So  it  was  in 
the  colonies  previously  to  the  revolution.  In  some  of  the 
colonies  there  were  chartered  privileges  which  caused  the 
dissenters  not  to  feel  the  burdens  of  the  establishment.  Yet 
the  Episcopal  was  the  government  church,  and,  in  the 
Middle  and  Southern  colonies,  claimed  most  of  the  rights 
and  immunities  of  the  church  in   the  mother  country. 


37 

From  an  early  pftriod  in  the  settlement  of  some  of  the 
colonies,  as  in  Virginia,  very  severe  laws  were  enncted 
aga'nst  dissenters — Presljyterians,  Baptists,  &c.  This 
would  very  naturally  cause  them  to  dislike  the  establish- 
ment, and  to  wish  to  see  the  Episcopal  hierarchy  in  this 
country  overthrown.  The  rights  of  conscience  as  well 
as  civil  liberty,  enlisted  the  energies  of  the  Presbyterian 
church   in  the  contest  for  our  national  independence. 

During  the  revolutionary  war,  the  Synod  of  New  York 
and  Phildelphia  was  the  highest  judicatory  of  the  Presby- 
terian church  in  the  United  States.  More  than  a  year 
before  the  declaration  of  Independence,  in  May,  1775, 
while  the  2d  Congress  was  in  session  in  Philadelphia,  the 
Synod  threw  the  weight  of  their  official  influence  in  favor 
of  Congress  and  liberty.  They  addressed  a  pastoral  let- 
ter to  their  people,  and  ordered  it  to  be  read  in  all  the 
churches,  on  the  day  of  the  general  fast  in  June,  1775. 
In  this  letter  they  say:  "Be  careful  to  maintain  the  union 
which  at  present  subsists  through  all  the  colon'es.  No- 
thing can  be  more  manifest  than  that  the  success  of  every 
measure  depends  on  its  being  inviolably  preserved,  and 
therefore  we  hope  that  you  will  leave  nothing  undone 
which  can  promote  that  end.  In  particular  as  the  Conti- 
nental Congress,  now  sitting  in  Philadelphia,  consists  of 
delegates  chosen  in  the  most  free  and  unbiassed  manner 
by  the  body  of  the  people,  let  them  not  only  be  treated 
with  respect,  and  encouraged  in  their  difficult  service  ;  not 
only  let  your  prayers  be  offered  *lip  to  God  for  his  di- 
rection in  their  proceedings,  but  adhere  firmly  to  their 
resolutions  ;  and  let  it  be  seen  that  they  are  able  to  bring 
out  the  whole  strength  of  this  vast  country  to  carry  them 
into  execution.  We  would  also  advise  for  the  same  pur- 
pose, that  a  spirit  of  candor,  charity,  and  mutual  esteem 
be  preserved,  and  promoted  towards  those  of  ditl'erent  re- 
ligious denominations." 

This  is  the  letter  to  which  Ramsey  refers,  in  the  2d  vol- 
ume of  his  history.  The  chairman  of  the  committee  that 
prepared  the  letter,  was  the  Rev.  Dr.  Witherspoon,  one  of 
the  signers  of  the  Ddclaration  of  Independence.  The 
Rev.  Dr.  Rogers,  afterwards  the  first  moderator  of  the 
General  Assembly,  was   one  of  the  committee.     And  so 

4 


38 

was  the  Rev.   Mr.  Caldwell,  who  was  afterwards  shot  by 
the  British. 

The  most  prominent  individuals  in  the  Presbyterian 
church  were  the  ardent  friends  of  liberty.  Dr.  Wither- 
spoon's  course  is  well  known. 

Dr.  Rogers  was  among  the  most  influential  in  the 
church.  Gen.  Washington  conferred  and  corresponded 
with  him  about  public  matters,  and  received  from  him  val- 
Viable  information. 

The  Rev.  David  Rice,  well  known  in  Kentucky,  was  a 
member  of  a  committee  of  public  safety  for  Bedford  coun- 
ty, Virginia,  during  most  x)f  the  war.  His  brothers  were 
soldiers  in  the  army.  In  his  sermons,  he  eshorted  his  peo- 
ple to  constancy  and  firmness  in  the  contest,  in  such  lan- 
guage as  this:  "We  should  resist  oppression  by  every 
means  in  our  power  to  the  last  extremity  ;  cheerfully  un- 
dergoing the  various  fatigues  and  dangers  of  military  life. 
This  is  wise,  because  opprersion  is  worse  than  death.  Let 
03  duly  consider  the  evils  of  oppression,  and  particularly 
that  oppression  which  is  prepared  for  us,  and  resolve  to 
suffer  any  losses,  undergo  any  hardships,  and  expose  our- 
selves to  death  with  all  its  natural  terrors,  rather  than  sub- 
mit to  it.  Let  us  not  indulge  a  mean,  selfish  disposition, 
but  consider  our  wives  and  children,  and  even  generations 
yet  unborn,  and  remember  that  their  happiness  depends  on 
our  conduct." 

Dr.  John  B.  Smith  v;as  President  of  Hamden  Sydney 
College,  Virginia,  and  one  of  the  most  popular  ministers  in 
the  Presbyterian  church.  He  took  a  bold  stand  for  his 
country.  At  one  time,  when  there  was  a  sudden  call 
foi-  troops,  he  headed  a  company  of  students  to  bring  aid 
to   his  countrymen  in  arms. 

Dr.  James  Hall  was  a  popular  minister  in  North  Caro- 
lina, and  afterwards  moderator  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly. At  a  time  of  great  emergency  in  the  South,  he,  at 
the  close  of  his  sermon  on  the  Sabbath,  told  his  people, 
that  all  men  had  various  duties  to  perform — and  that  he 
thought  it  his  duty  in  the  present  crisis  to  shoulder  his 
firelock  and  fight  for  his  country  ;  and  that  they  need  not 
for  a  time  expect  his  services  as  a  pastor.  He  formed  a 
company  chiefly  of  his  own  parishioners,  and  as  their  lead' 
.ey,  served  a  campaign. 


39 

I\iany  other  examples  of  similar  cljaracter  might  {^egiv 
en — but  these  are  enough. 

After  the  independence  of  the  colonies  had  been  ft* 
cured,  the  question  involving  religious  liberty  had  to  uc 
settled.  In  the  organization  of  State  governments  Vho 
fjuestion  came  up:  Shall  there  be  an  established  reli- 
gion? Or,  shall  provision  be  made  for  gome  of  the  more 
prominent  sects?  Or,-  shall  all  connexion  between  churifi 
and  state  be  dissolved,  and  equal  liberty  granted  to  nil? 
The  Presbyterians  advocated  equal  liberty  for  all. 

In  Virginia  the  struggle  was  most  arduous.  An  at- 
tempt was  made  to  retain  the  old  establishment.  This 
was  opposed  by  the  Presbyterians,  and  could  not  succeed. 
Then  an  effort  was  made  to  pass  "a  comprehensive  incor" 
porating  act,"  by  which  Presbyterians  might  parlicipa"e 
in  the  establishment.  This  was  opposed  by  the  Presbyte- 
rians. It  was  not,  however,  till  the  year  1786,  (hat  the 
law  securing  full  and  equal  liberty  was  passed  in  Virgin\i> 
Previously  to  this  time  the  Presbyterians  had  sent  five  me- 
morials to  the  Legislature,  all  in  favor  of  full  religious  lib- 
erty ;  one  of  which  was  signed  by  ten  thousand  namfs. 
'i'he  last  memorial  was  drawn  up  by  a  convention  of  Pres- 
byterian ministers  and  members  in  1785,  and  was  to  bo 
presented  to  the  Legislature  at  its  next  session,  it  was 
accordingly  presented  by  Dr.  John  B.  Smith,  who  w;\s 
heard  at  the  bar  of  the  house  three  diys  successively  in 
its  support.  The  objects  for  which  these  efforts  were 
made  were  gained — a  bill  was  passed  granting  to  all  A;'! 
religious  liberty — placing  all  ministers  and  sects  upon  an 
equal  footing,  and  leaving  it  to  the  people  of  ditierent  ''<:.- 
nominations  to  support  their  own  ministers  by  their  own 
voluntary  contributions.  (See  the  Presbyterian  Advocate, 
published  in  Lexington,  in  1830.) 


5:5"  Note  to  the  Reader.  It  was  necessary,  in  getting  at  the  spi- 
rit of  the  Presbyterian  Controversy,  to  glance  at  the  earlier  periods  oi 
our  Church.  In  doing  this,  we  see  the  diflerence  between  Scotch  Prtg- 
byierianism  and  primitive  American  Presbyterianisni.  This  will  also 
enable  us,  in  the  prosecution  ot  our  design,  to  see  the  strong  resem- 
blance which  modern  Old  SchooUs7)i  has  oT  the  Scotish  system. 

It  has  been  charged  upon  the  liberal  party  in  the  Presbyterian  church, 
that  they  favor  plans  of  union  with  the  Congregationalisis.     We  sljtw 


40 

fjoni  the  liistovy  of  our  church,  that  if  they  err  in  this,  the  fo'inders  of 
vur  church  erred  sull  more;  for,  Recording  to  Dr.  Green,  "they  Con- 
grcgaijiialized  ihu  church." 

It  lias  been  charged  upon  the  libera!  party,  that  tley  have  become 
too  lax  in  theology,  brcause  they  are  willing  to  tolfrate  some  shades  ol 
difference.  But  it  this  De  trror,  how  great  was  the  error  of  the  foun- 
ders of  our  church,  who,  according  to  Dr.  Miller,  "had  not  formally  and 
publjcly  adopted  any  particular  confession  ol  fa;th  or  ecclesiastical 
cons-titiition."  If  this  be  error,  how  great  was  the  error  of  </ic  mo<Af 
Sy7iod'\n  the  adopting  act  of  17-^9,  when  our  ministers  were  required 
to  bubscribe  tlie  Coniess'.on  of  Faith,  "as  htinp,  in^a/l  essential  and  ne- 
cessary articles,  good  forms  and  sound  words.'''  If  this  be  error,  how 
great  was  the  error  of  Kev.  6'a/rtMeZ  iJai-iea,  when  he  asserted,  that  in 
his  day,  the  principles  of  the  adopting  act  were  carried  out ! 

The  schism  of  1741  is  a  part  of  the  history  w  0'.:r  church,  which  is 
now  looked  into  v,':th  deep  interest,  as  exhibiting  the  same  spirit,  which 
has  again  resulted  in  the  disruption  of  tlie  church. 

The  history  of  those  early  periods  will  shew  which  party  hasadhered 
to  our  primitive  liberal  policy,  and  which  has  !  etn  the  advocate  ot  mea- 
sures, which  neither  we  nor  our  fathers  could  bear. 

It  has  been  charged  upon  the  liberal  parly,  that  they  are  no  Presbyte- 
rians, because  they  are  in  favor  of  voltuilary  asbociations — the  Ameri- 
can Board,  &.c.  But  in  the  days  of  McKenue,  or  of  Davits,  who  ever 
was  told  tl'.at  he  was  no  Presbyterian,  because  lie  would  not  favor  the 
narrow  policy  of  ecclesiastical  Boards?  In  that  day  these  new  mea- 
sures, new  basis,  ami  new  tests  were  not  kncwii. 

In  the  struggle  for  independence — for  civil  a.';d  religious  liberty — it 
will  be  s'^en,  that  American  Presbyterianism  wi-s  noT  Sc' Ich  Preshyte- 
rianism ;  and  while  the  Presbyterian  chuich  o:  !?'cotlfind  was  sitting 
Sicurelyin  the  lap  of  civil  power,  the  America.!  Prtsbytcrian  church 
was  laboring  for  full  religious  liberty  for  all. 


(41) 


CHAPTER  V. 


PLAN  OF  UNION  OF  ISO  1. 


After  the  schism  of  1741  had  been  healed,  and  the 
war  with  the  mother  country  ended,  nothing  of  impor- 
tance transpired,  during  the  remainder  of  that  century, 
to  mar  the  friendly  intercourse  between  Presbyterians 
and  CongregationaUsts.  Plans  of  union  and  coirespon- 
dence  between  the  two  bodies  were  extensively  cherished 
by  both  denominations.  But  the  plan  of  Union  of  1801 
has  been  the  occasion  of  more  unpleasant  feeling  than  all 
the  others.  It  ought  therefore  to  be  particulurly  noticed. 
It  was  a  Plan  of  Union  between  Presbyterians  and  Con- 
gregationalists  in  the  new  settlements  of  New  York,  Ohio. 
&c.,  where  there  was  great  difficulty  in  supporting  thu 
preaching  of  the  gospel  and  other  means  of  grace.  It 
was  thought  to  be  agreeable  to  the  powers  vested  in  the 
General  Assembly,  by  the  constitution  of  the  church,  lo 
correspond  with  other  churches.  The  plan  was  matured 
by  the  Assembly,  and  by  them  proposed  to  the  Association 
of  Connecticut,  and  by  that  body  unanimously  adopted. 
The  Plan  of  Union  was  as  follows  : 

"Regulations  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Presbyterian  church  in  America,  and  by  the  General  As- 
sociation of  the  Stale  of  Connecticut,  (provided  said  As- 
sociation agree  to  them,)  with  a  view  to  prevent  alienation 
and  promote  union  and  harmony  in  those  new  settlementt^ 
which  are  composed  of  inhabitants  from  these  bodies. 

1.  It  is  strictly  enjoined  on  all  their  missionaries  to  the 
new  settlements,  to  endeavor,  by  all  proper  means,  to  pro- 
mote mutual  forbearance  and  accommodation,  between 
those  inhabitants  of  the  new  settlements  who  hold  the  Pros- 


42 

byterlan  and  tliose  who  hold  the   Congregational    form  of 
church  government. 

2.  If  in  the  new  settlements  any  church  of  the  Congre- 
gational order  shall  settle  a  minister  of  the  Presbyterian 
order,  that  church  may,  if  they  choose,  still  conduct  their 
discipline  according  to  Congregational  principles,  settling 
their  difficulties  among  themselves,  or  by  a  council  mutu- 
allv  agreed  upon  for  that  purpose:  but  if  any  difficulty 
shall  exist  between  the  minister  and  the  church  or  any 
member  of  it,  it  shall  be  referred  to  the  Presbytery  to 
which  the  minister  shall  belong,  provided  both  parlies  agree 
to  it;  if  not,  to  a  council  consisting  of  an  equal  number 
of  Presbyterians  and  Congregatioualists,  agreed  upon  by 
both  parties. 

3.  if  a  Presbyterian  church  shall  settle  a  minister  o-f 
Congregational  principles,  that  church  may  still  conduct 
their  discipline  according  to  Presbyterian  principles:  ex- 
cepting that  if  a  difficulty  arise  between  him  and  his 
church,  or  any  member  of  it,  the  cause  shall  be  tried  by 
the  Association  to  which  the  said  minister  shall  belong, 
provided  botii  parties  agree  to  it;  otherwise  by  a  council, 
one  half  Congregatioualists  and  the  other  half  Presbyteri- 
ans, mutually  agreed  upon  by  the  parties. 

4.  If  any  congregation  consists  partly  of  those  who 
hold  the  Congregational  form  of  discipline,  and  partly  of 
those  who  hold  the  Presbyterian  form,  we  recommend  to 
both  parties  that  this  be  no  obstruction  to  their  uniting  in 
one  church  and  settling  a  minister;  and  that  in  this  case, 
the  church  choose  a  Standing  Committee  from  the  commu- 
nicants of  said  church,  whose  business  it  shall  be  to  call 
to  account  every  member  of  the  church  who  shall  conduct 
himself  inconsistently  with  the  laws  of  Christianity,  and 
to  give  judgment  on  such  conduct ;  and  if  the  person  con- 
demned by  their  judgment  be  a  Presbyterian,  he  shall  have 
liberty  to  appeal  to  the  Presbytery;  if  a  Congregational- 
ist,  he  shall  have  liberty  to  appeal  to  the  body  of  the  male 
communicants  of  the  church;  in  the  former  case,  the  de- 
termination of  the  Presbytery  shall  be  final,  unless  the 
church  consent  to  a  further  appeal  to  the  Synod,  or  to  the 
General  Assembly  ;  and  in  the  latter  case,  if  the  party- 
condemned  shall  wish  for  a  trial  by  a  mutual  council, 
the  cause  shall   be   referred  to  such  council.     And  pro- 


43 

vided  that  the  said  Standing  Committee  of  any  church  shall 
depute  one  of  themselves  to  attend  the  Presbytery,  he  may 
have  the  same  right  to  sit  and  act  in  the  Presbj  tery  as  a 
ruling  elder  of  the  Presbyterian  church."  (Assembly's 
Digest,  p.  297.) 

This  plan  operated  handsomely.  And,  except  among 
a  few  friends  of  the  most  rigid  Presbyterianism,  no  unea- 
siness was  felt  about  the  operations  of  the  plan  for  a  great 
number  of  years.  Tiie  wisest  and  best  men  in  the  church 
formed  the  plan  and  were  pleased  with  its  results.  As 
late  as  1833,  Dr.  Miller  said  :  "]  have  always  been  a  warm 
friend  to  it;  and  should  be  grieved  at  the  occurrence  of 
any  thing  calculated  to  interrupt  it,  or  render  it  less 
comfortable.  If  no  such  intercourse  existed,  it  ought 
forthwith  to  be  begun.  Those  who  come  so  near  together 
as  the  great  body  of  ministers  of  New  England  and  those 
of  the  Presbyterian  church  ought  undoubtedly  to  know 
and  love  one  another,  and  to  co-operate  in  the  great  work 
of  enlightening  and  converting  the  world."  And  again 
"The  articles  of  intercourse  between  the  Associations  of 
New  England  and  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presby 
rian  church  are  to  be  considered  as  a  solemn  ecclesiasti 
cal  compact,  evidently  intended  to  promote  harmony,  co-op 
ei'alion  and  mutual  strength." 

Other  plans  of  union  and  correspondence  have  been  en 
tercd    into   between  the  Presbyterian  church   and  other 
bodies. 

In  1803,  a  Plan  of  Union  and  Correspondence  was  pro 
posed  by  the  General  Assembly  to  the  Convention  of  Ver 
mont.     It  was  ratified  by  the  Convention. 

In  1808,  a  Plan  of  Union  was  formed  between  the  Syn- 
od of  Albany  and  the  Middle  Atsociation  in  the  Western 
District,  in  the  State  of  New  York. 

In  1811,  a  Plan  of  Union  and  Correspondence  was 
formed  between  the  General  Assembly  and  the  General 
Association  of  Massachusetts. 

In  1821,  a  Plan  of  Union  was  entered  into  between  the 
Presbyterian  church  and  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod— 
a  body  of  christians  familiarly  known  as  Seceders,  ex- 
tremely rigid  on  some  points.  The  first  article  of  that 
plan  has  been  regarded,  by  many,  as  more  objectionable 
than  any  feature  in  the  plan  of  1801,  with  the  Association 


44 

of  Connacticut.  It  is  as  follows:  "The  difterent  Presby- 
teries of  the  Associate  Keformed  church  shall  either  re- 
tain their  separate  organization,  or  shall  be  amalgamated 
with  those  of  the  General  Assembly,  at  their  own  choice. 
In  the  former  case,  they  shall  hnve  as  full  powers  and  priv- 
ileges as  any  oiher  Presbytery  in  the  united  body,  and 
shall  attach  themselves  to  the  Synods  most  convenient." 


Note  to  the  REAnER.  The  Plan  of  Union  of  1801  has  been  made  a 
pretext  with  the  Reform  party,  for  the  dismemberment  of  the  church. 
It  will  be  seen  that  it  was  a  wise  and  hberal  arrangement.  So  thought 
Dr.  Miller,  one  of  the  most  prominent  of  the  Reformers.  The  reader 
can  compare  the  Plan  of  16OI  with  the  Plan  of  1821— the  one  with 
Congregationalists  and  the  other  with  the  fcieceders— and  then  deter- 
mine upon  their  merits.  But  he  will  be  s-urprised  to  learn,  that  the 
Plan  with  the  Seceders  is  regarded  by  the  Rel'orm  party  as  altogether 
constitutional,  while  the  Plan  with  the  Con gregationali :<tg  is  entirely 
unconstitutional!  The  fact,  that  the  Seceders  side  with  (he  Reform 
party,  and  the  Congregationalists  favor  the  more  liberal  policy  of  Anie- 
rican  Fresbyterianism,  will  throw  some  light  on  this  subject. 


45 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THE  HOPKINSIAN  CONTROVERSY. 


Though  many  plana  of  union  and  correspondoiice  had 
brcn  formed  between  the  Presbyterians  and  Congrega- 
tionaltsts,  yet  jealousies  n,nd  suspicions  were  two  freely  in- 
dulged by  the  more  rigid  Presbvlerians,  who  became 
alarmed  at  what  they  were  pleased  to  call  Kexo  England 
Divinily.  In  1792,  Dr.  Hopkins,  of  New  England,  pub' 
lished  his  system  of  Divinty.  In  his  work  he  contended 
lor  a  religion  above  all  selfishness.  He  taught  a  general 
atouemeni,  the  offer  of  saJvalian  to  all,  moral  depravity  or 
inahUity  of  icill,  or  that  the  great  diffir,ulty  in  t/ie  way  of 
the  sinner's  salvation  lies  wholly  in  his  will.  This  work 
was  circulated  extensively,  and  was  the  occasion  of  array- 
ing the  old  parties — the  Scotch  and  the  American,  or  the 
"Old  Side"  and  the  "New  Side."  The  Old  Side  men  con- 
demned Hopkinsianism  as  heresy.  In  1812,  a  work  of 
some  500  pages,  called  the  Contrast,  was  publisl.cd,  to 
crush  the  errors  of  the  Ho|)kinsians,  and  to  show  that  the 
Hopkinsians  differed  from  Calvin! 

In  18 IG.  a  work,  called  the  Triangle,  made  ils  appear- 
ance in  defence  of  the  Flopkinsians  and  New  Ei.gland 
theology.  The  author  of  this  work  says  there  were  three 
great  points  of  difference  in  theology  between  the  two 
parties — that  the  "Old  Side"  men  held  the  aflirmative, 
and  the  Hopkinsians  the  negative  of  these  propositions, 
n  imely. 

"I.  That  the  whole  human  race  are  guilty  of  the  sin 
of  Adam,  independently  of  their  own  conduct,  and  for 
that  sin  are  truly  deserving  of  eternal  punishment ;  and 
that  every  man  ought  to  feel  himself  deserving  of  eternal 
dntnnation  for  the  first  sin  of  Adumi 


46 

2.  That  all  men  labor  under  a  true  and  physical  inca- 
pacity to  do  any  thing  which  God  requires. 

3.  That  Clirist  died  for  an  elect  number,  and  no(  for 
ihe  sins  of  the  whole  world." 

The  excitement  ran  high.  The  author  of  the  Trian- 
gle, speaking  of  the  rigid  party  in  the  church,  says: 
'•'J''heir  plan  and  their  hope  is,  by  mancEuvering,  by  art 
and  intrigue,  to  undermine  the  reputation  of  the  men  who 
hold  to  the  sentiments  which  prevail  in  New  England." 
On  the  other  hand,  the  rigid  party  denounced  the  writings 
of  the  New  England  men  as  "consisting  of  nothing  but 
verbiage,  tautology,  absurdity,  nonsense,  Armenianisni 
Socinianism,  Atheism,"  &c. 

In  1816,  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  came  out  in  oppo.<;l- 
tion  to  Hopkinsianistn.  In  their  pastoral  letter  they  say: 
'*The  Synod  assembled  in  Lancaster  at  the  present  time 
consists  of  a  greater  number  of  members  than  have  been 
convened  at  any  meeting  for  many  years;  and  from  the 
free  conversation  on  the  state  of  religion,  it  appears,  that 
all  the  Presbyteries  are  more  than  commonly  alive  to  the 
importance  of  contending  earnestly  for  the  faith  once 
delivered  to  the  saints,  and  of  resisting  the  introduction  of 
Arian,  Sociuian,  Armenian  and  Hopkinsian  heresies: 
whicli  are  some  of  the  means  by  which  the  enemy  of  souls 
would,  if  possible,  deceive  the  very  elect."'  And  agnin  : 
"May  the  time  never  como  when  our  ecclesiastical  co.irts 
shall  di'termine,  that  Ilopkinsianism  and  the  doctrines  of 
o'lr  Confession  of  Faith  are  the  same  thing;  or  that  ruen 
are  less  exposed  now  than  in  the  days  of  the  apo-ties  to 
the  danger  of  perverting  the  right  ways  of  the  Lord." 

The  author  of  the  Triangle,  in  1810,  predicted  the 
[irobable  results  of  this  rigid,  uncompromising  oppositiorj 
to  Hopkinsianism.  lie  says  :  "Among  the  unhappy  effects 
likely  to  result  from  the  measures  recently  taken,  we  may 
well  consider  the  gloomy  prospects  which  threaten  to  over- 
spread the  wliole  body  of  professed  Christians  in  the 
United  States,  flow  terrible  and  shocking  the  thought, 
that  .Christian  brethren,  friends  and  neighbors,  united 
for  many  years  in  the  strictest  bonds  of  amity,  7nust  be 
severed  under  the  charge  of  heresy!  Many  churches 
must  be  torn  and  agitated  with  fierce  disputes,  and  proba- 
bly   rent  asunder;  churches  be   cast  out  of  Presbyteries, 


47 

and  perhaps  Presbyteries  out  of  Synods.  And  what  ap- 
pearance would  the  Presbyterian  church  make,  torn  with 
divisions,  distracted  by  disputes,  rent  with  schisms,  palsied 
bv  animosities,  and  branded  with  the  name  of  a  persecu- 
tor?" 

Here  it  will  be  seen  wliat  commotions  Ihe  rigid  party 
were  making  twenty-five  years  ago,  under  the  pretext  of 
fighting  Hopkinsianism — a  system  that  has  stood,  and  will 
stand  the  test. 

I,t  also  appears  from  the  controversial  writings  of  that 
day,  that  the  parties  differed  as  to  the  propriety  of  de- 
manding a  rigid  subscription  to  the  Confession  of  Faith. 
The  author  of  the  Triangle  says:  "In  subscribing  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  my  views  were,  I  trust,  not  dissimi- 
lar to  the  views  of  those  who  compiled  it,  I  viewed  it  as 
a  noble  system  of  doctrine,  but  as  the  work  of  fallible 
men,  and  of  course,  by  no  means  perfect  or  infallible,  or 
to  be  regarded  as  divine  law.  I  had  never  any  idea  of 
substituting  it  for  the  word  of  God,  or  laying  it  beside  the 
sacred  oracles  as  of  paramount  authority,  at  which  all 
inquiry  was  to  stop,  and  disputation  cease.  It  was  never 
in  the  dreams  of  its  authors  to  set  it  up  as  the  sovereigii 
arbiter  of  conscience;  or  that  any  deviation  from  any 
points  therein  contained  were  to  be  stigmatized  as  a  devia- 
tion from  the  eternal  standard  of  truth,  or  subject  those 
who  deviated  to  censure  and  excommunication." 

It  is  not  certain  how  extensively  the  ministers  and 
members  of  the  Presbyterian  church  coincide  in  views 
with  Dr.  Hopkins,  But  it  is  certain,  that  but  very  few 
ecclesiastical  bodies  in  the  connexion  could  be  brought  to 
denounce  the  Hopkinsians.  A  Synod  or  two  and  perhaps 
a  few  Presbyteries  armed  themselves  with  ecclesiastical 
censures,  talked  and  resolved  and  hurled  their  spiritual 
thunders  at  the  errors  of  the  Hopkinsians,  and  at  all  who 
would  not  receive  the  Old  Side  exposition  of  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith.  But  soon  the  storm  blew  over,  and  there 
was  a  calm ;  and  now  some  who  were,  and  are  still  Hop- 
kinsians, stand  as  fair  even  with  the  Scotch  party,  as  if 
this  controversy  had  never  been  waged. 


(  43  ) 


CHAPTER  VII. 


THE  HOME  MISSIONARY  CONTROVERSY-OLD  SCHOOL 
CIRCULAR— NEW  SCHOOL*  DISAVOWAL— DRS,  GREEN 
AND  BEMAN— CINCINNATI  CONVENTION.    / 

Before  the  close  of  the  last  century,  the  General  As- 
sembly appointed  a  Standing  Committee  on  Missions. 
Yet  but  little  could  be  done  to  supply  the  increasing  deso- 
lations of  the  land  with  the  preaching  of  the  gospel. 
The  success  of  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners 
for  Foreign  Missions,  a  voluntary  society,  patronized  by 
Presbyterian,  Dutch  Reformed  and  Congregational 
churclies,  induced  those  churches  to  try  a  similar  plan 
for  Domestic  Missions.  The  wisest  and  best  men  in  the 
Presbyterian  church  cordially  recommended  such  a  plan. 
Drs.  Alexander  and  Miller  wrote  to  Dr.  Peters,  the  First 
Secretary,  as  follows  : 

*'Rev.  and  Dear  Sir: — We  rejoice  to  hear  that  there  is 
a  plan  in  contemplation  for  forming  a  Domestic  Mission- 
ary Society,  on  a  much  larger  scale  than  has  heretofore 
existed.  We  have  long  been  of  the  opinion,  that  the  sub- 
ject of  Domestic  Missions  is  one  which  ought  to  interest 
the  hearts,  and  to  rouse  the  exertions  and  prayers  of 
American  Christians  to  an  extent  which  very  few  appear 
to  appreciate.  Our  impression  is,  that  unless  far  more 
vigorous  measures  than  we  have  hitherto  witnessed  shall 
be  soon  adopted  for  sending  the  blessed  gospel  and  its 
ordinances  to  the  widely  extended  and  rapidly  increasing 
New   Settlements  of  our  country,  their  active  and  enter- 

*  The  reader  will  see  that  I  often  use  the  names  "Old  School"  and 
'•New  School,"  just  as  our  New  Basis  brethren  wouild  do.  1  do  it  not 
because  I  consider  them  appropriate,  but  for  the  sake  of  distinction,  as 
I  wish  to  be  understood  by  th«  mass  of  both  parties. 


49 

prising  population  inuat,  at  no  great  distance  of  time,  In 
al)ancloned  to  a  slate  not  mucii  short  of  entire  destitution 
of  tlie  means  of  grace.  We  would  fain  hope,  that  no 
christian,  who  loves  the  Redeemer's  kingdom,  and  re- 
flects on  the  value  of  immortal  souls;  no  parent,  who  \\> 
members  that  his  own  children,  or  children's  children, 
may?  in  due  time,  make  a  part  of  the  population  of  those 
districts;  no  patriot,  who  desires  to  see  the  virtue,  peace, 
union  and  happiness  of  his  country  established,  can  possi- 
bly be  indifferent  to  an  object  of  such  immense  import- 
ance. Our  prayer  is,  that  the  God  of  all  grace  may  rouse 
the  spirit  of  the  nation  on  this  subject  ;  and  that  the 
friends  of  religion  who  may  be  convened  for  the  purpose 
of  taking  it  into  consideration,  in  the  month  of  May  next, 
may  be  directed  to  the  adoption  of  a  system  which  shall 
serve  to  give  increasing  interest  and  energy  of  proceeding 
in  this  momentous  concern,  and  prove  a  source  of  lasting 
blessings  to  our  beloved  country." 

The  feeling  thus  expressed  by  Drs.  Alexander  and 
Miller  prevailed.  After  much  consultation  it  was  pro- 
posed to  form  a  National  Institution,  embracing  all  those 
denominations  that  were  on  terms  of  "intercommunion 
and  ecclesiastical  correspondence."  This  was  the  case 
with  the  Presbyterian,  Dutch  Reformed,  and  Congrega- 
ti-onal  churches.  Delegates  from  these  three  denomina- 
tions met  in  the  city  of  New  York,  May  10th,  1826,  and 
formed  the  American  Home  Missionary  Society. 

The  plan  for  the  Society's  operations  was  generally 
and  briefly  this:  to  sustain  Presbyterian  ministers  in  fee- 
ble Presbyterian  churches,  Dutch  Reformed  ministers  ia 
Dutch  Reformed  churches,  and  Congregational  minis- 
ters in  Congregational  churches.  The  ministers  were  re- 
quired to  be  regularly  authorized,  and  ui  good  standing  ia 
their  Presbytery,  Classis  or  Association. 

Of  the  hundred  and  twenty-six  delegates  in  that  Con- 
vention, fifty-two  were  from  New  England.  One  hundred 
and  one  were  from  the  territory  embraced  within  the 
bounds  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  seventy  of  whom 
were  members  of  the  Presbyterian  church. 

Shortly   after  the  formation  of  the    Home  Missionary 
Society,  the  General  Assembly  reorganized  their  Board  of 
Missions. 
5 


50 

The  plan  of  the  Home  Missionary  Society  succeeded, 
and  the  Society  flourished.  But  soon  it  was  opposed  by 
tlie  friends  of  Ecclesiastical  Boards.  They  advocated  an 
exclusive  poUcy,  and  eudeavored  to  excite  suspicion 
atrainst  the  American  Home  Missionary  Society. 

^When  in  1828  the  Assembly's  Board  was  reorganized, 
)t  was  seen  that  the  two  Societies  would  conflict.  Then 
tlie  Home  Missionary  Society  was  desirous  to  unite  with 
the  Assembly's  Board.  Their  Executive  Committee  pro- 
jiosed  a  plan  of  union.  Of  that  plan,  the  late  Dr.  Rice 
of  Virginia  said,  "I  do  greatly  approve  of  the  plan  pro- 
j>ased  by  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  A.  H.  M.  So- 
ciety." But  the  plan  was  rejected,  and  the  A.  H.  M. 
Society  was  greatly  blamed,  by  the  Old  School  party,  for 
yeeking  a  union. 

The  Old  School  party  wished  to  rouse  the  church  in 
favor  of  the  Assembly's  Board,  which  had  hitherto  been 
comparatively  inoperative,  against  the  A.  H.  M.  Society. 
in  1829,  only  three  years  after  the  formation  of-  the  A.  H. 
f.I.  Society,  this  subject  was  brought  up  in  the  General 
Assembly,  and  the  following  preamble  and  resolution 
adopted  : 

"While  the  Assembly  would  affectionately  soHcit  the 
co-operation  of  the  churches  with  their  own  Board  of  Mis- 
sions :  yet  as  many  of  our  churches  have  already  united 
iheir  efforts  with  the  A.  H.  M.  Society,  and  the  A.  B.  C, 
F.   Missions,  therefore 

Resolved,  as  the  sense  of  the  Assembly,  that  the 
cluirches  should  be  left  entirely  to  their  own  unbiased 
and  deliberate  choice  of  the  medium  through  which  their 
charities  shall  flow  forth  to  bless  the  perishing."  (Min- 
utes, 1829,  p.  374.) 

This  liberal  policy  did  not  suit  the  fiiends  of  Ecclesias- 
tical Boards.  In  1831,  the  A.  H.  M.  Society  was  al- 
inost  simultaneously  attacked  in  Philadelphia  and  Cincin- 
nati. At  a  meeting  of  the  Cincinnati  Presbytery  in  Jan. 
J.831,  Rev.  Mr.  Crane,  agent  of  the  Assembly's  Board  of 
Missions,  requested  the  Presbytery  to  appoint  a  Board  of 
Agency  for  the  Assembly's  Board  for  the  Valley  of  the 
IVlississippi.  This  measure  was  advocated  by  Dr.  Wilson 
and  others.  Bat  the  Presbytery  refused  to  comply  with 
the  request.     Dr.  Wilson    then  threw  out  suspicions  and 


51 

insinuations  against  the  A.  H.  M.  Society.  Soon  after 
thiis,  he  published  a  pamphlet  entitled  "Four  Proijosiiiors 
fcuslained  against  the  claims  of  the  A.  H.  M.  Society." 
Speaking  of  the  friends  of  this  Society  he  says,  that 
''Hhey  profess  to  be  Presbyterians  for  the  purpose  of  sub*  : 
verting  the  doctrines,  and  overthrowing  the  Presbytejiau 
church."     (p.  18.) 

This  was  considered  a  very  uncharitable  suspicioii 
against  such  men  as  Drs.  Woods,  Porter,  Cornelius,  Pay-- 
son,  Wisnerj  Griffin,  Day,  Humphrey,  &c.,  of  New 
England,  and  Drs.  Rice,  Blackburn,  Alexander,  MillCi., 
Cox,  McA-uley,  Richards,- Skinner,  Beman,  Cleland,  Nel- 
son, Anderson,  Allan,  &c.,  of  tlie  Presbyterian  church. 

Thesg  charges  too,  were  made  against  the  A.  H.  ,\f. 
Society  in  the  year  1&31,  when  it  was  known,  that  in  th^j 
year  1=830,  that  Society  had  done  more  to  supply  the  des- 
titute with  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  than  had  bcca- 
done  by  the  Assombly's  Committee  or  Board  in  the  spaotr 
of  almost  foity  years. 

Soon  after  the  .publication  of  Dr.  Wilson's  paniphlet  i.i 
Citcinnati,  a  second  edition  of  five  thousand  copies  was 
published  in  Philadelphia  by  the  friends  of  the  Assembly'-? 
Board. 

in  not4cing  this  pamphlet,  Mr.  Peters,  the  Socretary  of 
the  Society,  said::  '"if  any  have  suspectoJ  us  of  ulterior 
views- unfriendly  to  the  Preal^yterian  church,  will  not  cur 
steady  altuchment  to  its  best  interests,  and  our  zealou-5 
fffijrts  to  build-  up  its  desolations,  in  a  I'ltle  while  convino 
all  candid  men,  who  are  willing  to  corne  to  the  light,  liiat 
their  suspicions  are  unjust  and  cruel?"  Agiin:  '"'I'ho 
stand  taken  by  my  friend.  Dr.  Wilson,  with  all  the  liyiit 
he  has  upon  ilie  subject,  surprises  me  iiuich.  But  I  ain 
still  not  without  hope,  that  on  fuither  reflection,  he  will 
come  to  a  more  friendly  stuteof  feeling  towards  the  A.  W. 
M..  Society.  Surely  he  must  see  tliat  his  suspicions  cf 
unfriendliness  to  the  Presbyterian  church  on  our  part, 
arp  not  only  in  the  face  of  all  the  evidence,,  but  also  con- 
trary to  express  and  reiterated  assurances  of  our  unwaver- 
ing desire  to  build  up  the  Presbvteri.'in  ciiurch  bver  the 
whole  field  of  the  West  and  the  Sjuth.  An!  are  we  not 
doing  it  more  efficiently  tluui.  all  the  other  Missionary  So- 
cieties tojietlier  L'^' 


52 

The  strong  argument  of  the  advocates  of  the  Assem- 
bly's Board  was,  that  the  church,  in  her  distinctive 
character,  ought  to  evangelize  the  world  ;  that  is  ecclesias- 
tically, not  through  voluntary  societies.  To  this  it  wns 
replied,  that  Presbyterians  regard  their  denomination  only 
:)s  a  part  of  the  general  church,  and  that  if  for  the  rea- 
son assigned,  they  stand  off  from  the  A.  H.  M.  Society, 
for  the  same  reason  they  might  refuse  to  operate  with  the 
A.  B.  C.  F,  IMiss  ons,  the  American  Bible  Society,  tho 
American  Tract  Society,  or  the  American  Sunday  School 
Union, 

T'he  stiife  by  this  time  rose  Ijigh.  Ttie  friends  of  Ec- 
clesiastical Boards,  or  of  an  exclusive  policy,  appropria- 
ted to  themselves  the  names,  "Old  School": — ^'tljp  ortho- 
dox"— "true  friends  of  the  Presbyteri;in  church."'  They 
called  the  friends  of  Voluntary  Association*,  "New 
School,"  charging  them  with  a  partialiy  for  the  Con- 
grrgntionulista.  New  England  theology,  &c.  With  many, 
names  hnd  a  powerful  charm.  To  the  name  "JVefc 
School,'-  li.e  friends  of  a  liberal  policy  have  objected.  But 
for  the  sake  of  distinction  it  has  been  used,  knowing  that 
the  spirit  and  conduct  of  the  parlies  ought  to  decide  who 
are  '-the  true  friends  of  the  Presbyterian  Church;-" 
knowiiig  alsOr  as  President  Young  once  said,  ^lat  ^'new 
pavers  uic    often  usurped   while  eld  names  are  rctaiHcd." 

it  appears  from  the  documents  of  1831,  tlu.t  the  Old 
School  party  endeavored  to  secure  the  control  of  the 
church,  tlie  funds.  Missionary  operations,  &:c.,  by  creat- 
ing an  alarm  about  doctrines.  The  case  of  Mr.  Barnes, 
which  came  before  the  Assembly  cf  16S1,  excited  general 
interest,  and  afforded  the  Old  School  an  opportunity  of 
/ningling  doctrinal  differences  with  every  question  that 
was  agitated.     But  still  they  were  unsuccessful. 

The  action  of  the  Assembly  of  1831  did  not,  therefore, 
satisfy  the  fiiends  of  the  Assembly"s  Board.  That  party 
was  in  a  miijority.  After  the  close  of  the  Assembly, 
the^v  appointed  a  Central  Committee  at  Philadelphia  to 
correspontl  with  Comn.iitees  which  they  appointed  in  every 
Synod  supposed  "to  be  friendly  to  their  views,  and  dis- 
po>!ed  to  co'operate  in  giving  efficiency  to  their  plans." 

The  appointment  of  these  Committees,  with  a  view 
eventually  to  control  the  highest  judicatory  of  the  church, 


53 

was  regarded  by  tlie  true  friends  of  tlie  churcli,  as  an  uii* 
constitutional  and  revolutionary  measure.  In  July  1831, 
the  Central  Committee  issued  their  Circular,  it  is  too 
lengthy  for  insertion  here.  It  can  be  seen  in  the  Calvinis- 
tic  Magazine  and  other  periodicals  of  that  day.  It  was  a 
*'jjfl7ric"  document  as  the  following  extract  will  show  : 

"Our  Board  of  Education,  and  Board  of  Missions  must 
both  receive  a  liberal  patronage  and  a  decided  support. 
This  is  essential.  Without  this  we  are  undone.  The  Vol- 
untary Associations  that  seek  to  engross  the  patronage  of 
our  church,  and  have  already  engrossed  a  large  part  of 
it,  have  taken  the  start  of  us,  in  the  all-important  con- 
cerns of  education  and  of  missions.  They  now  labor  tj 
get  the  whole  of  these  into  their  own  hands;  well  know- 
ing that  if  this  be  effected,  they  will  infallibly,  in  a  very 
short  time,  govern  the  church."  Being  in  a  minority,  the 
Old  School  arrayed  themselves  against  the  General  As- 
sembly, the  highest  judicatory  of  the  church.  From  the 
extract  above,  it  wiM  be  s'?en  that  they  were  alarmed  be- 
cause their  party  could  not  "govei-n  lite  church.''^ 

At  the  same  time,  (July  1831)  Dr.  Green,  in  the  Chris- 
tian Advocate,  commenced  the  publication  of  a  series  ot^ 
numbers  on  "TAe  freseni  state  of  the  Presbyterian 
church."  They  were  pretty  much  in  the  style  of  the 
"Circular,"  as  a  few  extracts  will  show  : 

"We  say  then,  that  the  members  of  the  last  Ajjsembly 
appear  to  us  to  be  far  more  strongly  and  characteristically 
marked  by  a  difference  in  theologcal  views  and  attach- 
ments, than  those  of  any  other  Assembly  we  have  ever 
seen.  Indeed  the  difference  we  speak  of  was  unhesita- 
tingly avowed,  by  a  number  of  the  members  in  their 
speeches;  and  to  give  our  readers  a  right  understanding 
of  it,  we  shall,  as  correctly  as  we  can,  divide  those  among 
whom  this  difference  did  and  does  exist,  into  two  classes 
— sometimes  called — and  occasionally  so  called  in  the  As- 
sembly— the  Old  School  and  the  New  School  Presby- 
terians." "We  speak  what  we  firuily  believe,  when  we 
say,  that  unless,  in  the  passing  year,  there  is  a  general 
waking  up  of  the  Old  School  Presbyterians,  to  a  sense  of 
their  danger  and  their  duty,  their  influence  in  the  General 
Assembly  will  forever  afterward  be  subordinate,  and  un- 
der control ;  and  we  are  willing  that  men  of  all  parties 
5* 


54 

should  know  tliat  such  is  our  conviction.  We  wish  for  no 
concealment  on  the  sm'jject.  It  need  not  be  told  that 
tliose  whom  we  have  ranked  in  the  second  class  of  the 
constituent  members  of  the  Assembly,  were  a  decided 
majority  of  that  body.  They  chose  a  Moderator  suited 
to  their  plans  and  intentions;  and  it  was  in  their  power 
to  dispose  of  every  measure  that  came  before  the  judica- 
ture, just  as  they  pleased."  Then  follows  a  dissertation 
upon  the  character  of  Drs.  Beman  and  Peters.  There  is 
one  remark  in  this  connection,  which  is  true,  and  mani- 
festly so,  in  the  treatment  which  the  New  School — a  ma- 
jcrihj,  received  at  the  hands  of  their  Old  School  brethren. 
"It  will  always  happen  that  party  spirit  in  one  portion  of 
the  church  will  beget  it  in  another,  indeed  whfn  partiti^ 
exist,  and  are  earnestly  opposed  to  each  other,  Iht  one  /hat 
uses  no  means  to  obtain  or  preserve  an  ascendency ,  icill  al- 
Most  immediately  he  crushed,  by  the  one  that  actively  etn- 
ploys  such  means.''' 

The  next  extract  from  Dr.  Green  will  show,  that  in  his 
epinion,  ^Hhe  principal  cause^'  of  party  spirit  was  in 
relation  to  missionary  operations.  As  this  difficulty 
was  among  the  most  promincni  it  should  be  well  under- 
stood. Dr.  Green  says:  "But  the  peculiar  ardor  of  ex- 
citmient  now  prevalent,  is  principally  attributable  to  a 
special  cause,  which  ought  to  be  more  distinctly  marked. 
It  is  not  the  case  of  ?tlr.  Barnes.  That  case  was  indeed 
made  an  adjunct,  and  an  auxiliary  of  the  principal  cause  ; 
but  the  cause  itself,  the  baneful  apple  of  discord  which  has 
been  thrown  into  the  midst  of  us,  is  the  inflexible  puipose 
and  untiring  effort  of  the  Corresponding  Secretary  and 
General  Agent  of  the  A.  H.  M.  Society,  to  amalgamate 
the  Board  of  Missions  of  the  General  Assembly  with  that 
Society." 

On  the  other  side,  a  "Disavowal"  was  published  by 
prominent  New  School  ministers,  supposed  to  be  implica- 
ted in  the  Christian  Advocate,  and  by  the  Circular  of  the 
Central  Committee.  They  say  :  "Now,  if  any  persons 
adverse  to  the  views  and  measures  of  Dr.  Green,  whom 
he  calls  opponents,  are  implicated  by  the  foregoing 
charges,  it  is  natural  to  suppose,  from  local  circumstances 
and  other  causes,  that  some  or  all  of  the  subscribers  to 
this  paper  are  intended:  we  think  it,  therefore,  our  duty 


55 

to  th(3  church  and  to  our.-^elvas,  hereby  solemnly  to  de- 
clare, that  no  one  of  us  knew  of  any  pre-concerted  plan, 
combination,    or    effort,    designed   to  affect  the  men)bers, 

-the  character  or  the  measures  of  the  KtsI  Assembly." 
"We  repel,  also,  the  numerous  insinuations  directed 
against  us,  if  classed  with  those  who  are  called  "New 
School  Presbyterians,"  that  we  are  hostile  to  evangelical 
orthodoxy,  sound  Presbyterianism,  and  the  best  interests 
of  the    Presbyterian  church." 

In  reference  to  the  Circular,  they  say  :  "We  have  read 
with  pain  the  Circular  signed  by  a  Central  Committee  of 
Correspondence  in  this  city ;  and  we  solemnly  declare, 
that  we  know  of  no  member  of  the  Presbyterian  church 
who  has  been  willing  to  expose  to  hazard  the  vital  interest;* 
of  the  same,  or  who  desires  either  the  mutilation  or  sub- 
version of  our  Presbyterian  system." 

A  similar  disavowal  was  made  by  Dr.  Eeman  in  his 
B-cview  of  "The  present  state  of  the  Presbyteriaa 
church."  It  was  published  in  the  Philadelphian  in  1831. 
The  following  are  extracts  from  that  noble  vindication. 

"The  same  shades  and  modifications  of  doctrinal  views 
have  been  held  by  the  members  of  that  body  for  many  years 

'  past,  and  when  any  question  came  up  adapted  to  call  forth 
peculiar  views,  these  shades  and  modifications  have  been 
disclosed.  But  let  it  be  remembered,  that  we  never  had  a 
case  like  that  of  Mr.  Barnes  till  the  present  year.  And  the 
venerable  Editor  (Dr.  Green)  may  thank  h.\mse\r\^  ^ the  dif- 
ference in  theological  vines  and  attachments^  were  ^more 
strongly  and  characteristically  marked^  than  he  could 
wish.  Could  a  man  be  so  infatuated  as  to  suppose,  that 
a  minister,  holding  the  sentiments  expressed  by  Mr. 
Barnes,  could  be  deposed  or  censured  as  a  heretic,  without 
creating  some  excitement  in  the  Presbyterian  church  ? 
The  same  effect  essentially  would  have  been  witnessed, 
under  similar  circumstances,  in  any  Assembly  at  least 
for  twenty  years  past.  But  here  let  it  be  remarked,  that 
this  very  case,  though  it  called  forth  the  expression  of 
doctrinal  views,  did  not  produce  any  uniform  or  settled 
arrangement  of  parties.  Some  were  in  favor  of  Mr. 
Barnes,  because  they  were  essentially  with  him  in  senti- 
ment ;  others  because  they  have  always  known  that  simi- 
lar sentiments  were  held  and  tolerated  in  the  Presbyterian 


56 


1 


chiircli  ;  and  those  persons  who  have  sustained  Mr.  Barnes, 
were  some  of  them  not  only  pupils  hut  teachers  in  the 
Old  School  as  well  as  the  New."  "From  this  discussion, 
it  would  seem  that  the  majoriiy  and  the  minority  in  the 
last  Assembly,  were  not  formed  on  the  principle  of  rfoc- 
trinal  distinction,  but  on  the  principle  of  ecclesiastical 
order.  The  terms  Old  School  and  New  School  more  pro- 
perly mark  the  difference  in  theological  sentiment,  and 
are  employed  somewhat  incorrectly  and  loosely  by  this 
writer,  where  the  terms  minority  and  majority,  or  High 
Church  and  Loio  Church  parties  would  have  been  more 
simple  and  appropriate,  and  much  less  liable  to  mislead 
the  reader.  A  correct  and  analyticr.l  classification  of  the 
members  of  the  last  General  Assembly,  as  it  strikes  me, 
would  be  the  following.  The  majority  .were  the  Low 
Church  Presbyterians.  They  are  friendly  to  those  volun- 
tary associations  which  are  the  glory  of  our  age  and  na- 
tion :  such  as  the  Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreign 
Missions,  the  American  Education  Society,  and  the  Ame- 
ican  Home  Missionary  Society.  They  love  these  Socie- 
ties, because  their  constitutions  breathe  a  liberal  spirit, 
and  because  their  beneficent  course  has  secured  the  confi- 
dence of  the  public."  "If  the  object  of  this  public  alarm 
is  demanded.  Dr.  Green  himself  shall  answer  the  ques- 
tion. 'We  speak  what  we  firmly  believe,  when  we  say, 
that  unless,  in  the  passing  year,  there  is  a  general  waking 
up  of  the  Old  School  Presbyterians  to  a  sense  of  their 
danger  and  their  duty,  their  injfluence  in  the  General  As- 
semb/y  will  forever  afterward  be  subordinate  and  under 
control.^  This  text  is  plain  enough  without  a  comment. 
The  imminent  ^danger''  that  now  threatens  the  church  is, 
that  the  '0/J  School  Presbyterians'  are  likely  to  lose 
Hheir  influence  in  the  General  Assembly,^  and  their  pres- 
sing duty  is  to  exert  themselves,  this  year,  to  regain  this 
iw//uence." 

The  last  quotation  we  will  make  from  Dr.Beman,  when 
compared  with  subsequent  developments,  will  show  that 
he  well  understood  the  merits  of  the  controversy.  He 
says :  "The  great  controversy  now  carried  on  in  the  Pres- 
byterian church  principally  relates  to  questions  of  ecclesi- 
astical order ;  and  among  these  the  mode  of  conducting 
missions  appears  to  be  considered  the  most  important  by 


57 

the  High  Church  party.  This  question,  if  \vc  may  crcdi-t 
the  Advocate,  more  than  any  thing  else,  now  feeds  the 
fire  of  party  zeal ;  and  if  alienation  is  to  increase,  and  the 
breach  to  become  wider,  and  more  and  more  ruinous,  it 
would  seem  probable  that  this  is  tc  sonstitute  the  princi- 
pal source  of  the  desolating  mischief.  True,  Dr.  Green 
has  sounded  the  alarm  against  heresy,  and  said  many 
things  which  would  lead  the  ignorant  and  timid  to  appre- 
hend that  our  doclriaal  standards  are  about  to  be  annihi- 
lated, but  when  he  touches  the  cord  of  ^ecclesiastical  or- 
der,^  there  is  a  vibration  which  tells  us  the  whole  truth." 

From  an  impartial  review  of  the  controversy  at  that 
time,  it  is  iBamfest  that  the  commotion  was  made  by  the 
C'ld  School  struggling  fo-r  power.  Dr.  Green  was  one  of 
the  oldest  and  most  excellent  men  in  the  church.  He  and 
a  few  others  about  Philadelphia  had  long  been  in  the  habit 
of  controling  the  General  Assembly.  The  delegates  to 
the  Assembly  had  been  in  the  habit,  year  aficr  year,  of 
going  up  to- Philadelphia,  and  giving  their  sanction  to  these 
fathers  and  brethren.  But  now,  when  the  church  had 
grown  to  considerable  size,  and  the  pul)lic  sentiment  of 
the  church  was  likely  to  go  in  favor  of  voluntary  socie- 
ties, and  in  opposition  to  the  plans  and  control  of  these 
brethren,  they  became  alarmed,  supposing  that  while  they 
were  in  a  minority,  the  truth  and  order  of  the  church 
would  be  exposed  to  "■iinpei,4ing  rasi/t."  llenee  T}y.  ^Vil. 
son,  in  his  Standard  in  1831,  in  speaking  of  the  New 
School,  says:  "Who  (unless  God  of  his  infinite  mercy 
arrest  the  evil,)  will  ia  a  short  time  be  able  to  control  ev- 
ery existing  judicatory  and  institution  of  learniug  belong- 
ing to  the  Presbyterian  charch  throughout  the  wiiole 
land." 

Admitting  that  these  brethren  conscientiously  believed 
that  the  church  was  in  danger  unless  their  plans  were 
carried  out,  it  is  still  evident,  from  the  emphasis  they  lay 
on  the  word  '■^control,'"  they  were  under  the  influence  of 
the  littleness  of  party  fear.  They  could  not  brook  the 
idea  of  the  Assembly's  being  under  the  C07itral  of  the  oth- 
er party  ! 

From  the  history  of  those  times,  it  is  also  manifest  that 
if  the  majority  had  been  willing  to  be  governed  by  the 
minority,  doctrinal  diference  would  liave  created  no  diffi- 


58 

cnlty — New  England  Divinity  could  easily  have  been 
tolerated.  The  error  of  the  New  School,  therefore,  in 
1831,  (if  error  it  can  be  called)  was  in  refusing  to  let  the 
minority  govern  the  church  ! 

In  reference,  however,  to  the  missionary  question,  the 
Assembly  of  1831  was  desirous  to  have  the  difficulties 
compromised.     They  passed  the  following  resolution: 

"That  in  view  of  existing  evils,  arising  from  the  sepa- 
rate action  of  the  Assembly's  Board-  of  Missions  and  the 
A.  H.  M.  Society  in  the  West,  it  be  recommended  to  the 
Synods  of  Ohio,  Cincinnati,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Kentucky, 
Tennessee,  West  Tennessee,  and  the  Presbyteries  in  the 
Wes-t  connected  with  them,  to  correspond  with  one  another 
and  devise  a  plan  for  carrying  on  missions  in  the  West, 
and  report  the  result  of  their  correspondence  to  the  next 
General  Assembly;  it  being  understood  that  brethren  in 
the  West  shall  be  left  to  adopt  their  own  plan,  and  any 
other  Synods  and  Presbyteries,  besides  the  above  men- 
tioned, in  the  Valley  of  the  JMississippi,  may  be  embraced 
in  the  correspondence,  if  they  desire  it." 

In  conformity  with  this  recommendation,  a  Convention- 
met  at  Citjctnnati  in  November  1831.  Delegates  from 
twenty  Presbyteries  were  present.  The  i^csult  of  their 
deliberations  was  favorable  to  the  Assembly's  Board,  aa 
appears  from  the  following  resolution  : 

^^ Resolved,  That  under  these  circumstances  they  deem> 
it  inexpedient  to  propose  any  change  in  th^, General  As- 
sembly's mode  of  conducting  missions,  as  they  fully  ap- 
prove of  ctiat  now  in  such  successful  operation  ;  and  that 
the  purity,  peace  and  prosperity  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  macerially  depend  on  the  active  and  efficient  aid 
the  sessions-  and  Presbyteries  under  its  care  may  afford  to 
the  Assembly's  Board/'     (Minutes  of  Convention,  p.  14.) 

With  the  action  of  the  mnjority,  the  minority  were  dis- 
satisfied. They  submitted  to  the  public  a  Report,  in  a 
pamphlet  of  forty-eight  pages,  in  which,  they  protested 
against  the  course  pursued  by  their  Old  School  brethren 
in  the  Convention.  They  complained  that  the  members  of 
the  Synod  of  Piusburgh,  which  was  not  named,  or  con- 
templated in  the  Assembly's  resolution,  were  admitted  to 
seats,  and  that  they  controled  the  Convention.  They 
said  the    Home  Missionary    interest  iathe  West  was  not 


59 

.cpresented.  They  complained,  tliat  the  official  influence 
of  the  Assembly's  Board  had  been  used  to  prevent  any 
compromise  or  agreement  short  of  what  would  result  in 
the  ultimate  death  of  the  A.  H.  M.  Society ;  and  that 
the  instructions  of  the  Assembly  had  not  been  regarded 
by  the  majority  of  the  Convention,  inasmuch  as  the  As- 
sembly had  recommended  some  action,  that  all  might 
"endeavor  to  agree  upon  some  plan  of  conducting  mis- 
sions," and  the  course  of  the  majority  was  calculated  to 
preclude  all  agreement.     (See  Report.) 

After  this,  efforts  at  union  or  agreement  were  generally 
abandoned.  The  friends  of  each  Society  pursued  their 
own  way. 

The  character,  strength  and  plan?  of  the  parties  re- 
mained, for  the  -most,  unchanged,  during  the  years  1831, 
2,  3,  and  4.  Each  year  the  New  School  had  the  majori- 
ty in  the  Assembly.  Had  they  designed  to  revolutionize 
the  church,  they  could  have  done  it;  for,  in  the  language 
of  Dr.  Green,  "it  was  in  their  power  to  dispose  of  every 
measure  that  came  before  the  judicature  just  as  they 
pleased."  But  their  course  was  marked  by  great  modera- 
tion and  forbearance. 


(60) 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

VOLUNTARY  SOCIETIES  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL  BOARDS. 


The  opposition  which  was  made  to  the  A.  H.  Mis- 
sionary Society  gave  rise  to  the  general  controversy  a- 
bout  the  manner  of  conducting  benevolent  operations. 
The  A.  B.  C.  F.  Missions,  and  the  A.  Education  Society, 
and  the  A.  H.  M.  Society  were  called  Voluntary  Socie- 
ties— not  under  the  ecclesiastical  control  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian, Congregational,  or  Dutch  Reformed  Church,  but  pat- 
ronized by  these  several  churches — bodies  which  are  Cal- 
vinistic  in  their  creeds,  and  which  recognize  each  other  as 
orthodox,  and  are  upon  terms  of  friendly  correspondence. 
Upon  this  principle — the  voluntary — are  founded  the  A. 
Bible,  the  A.  Tract,  the  A.  Temperance,  and  the  A.  Sun- 
day School  Societies. 

The  New  School  were  generally  the  friends  of  the  Vol- 
untary Societies,  and  the  Old  School  the  friends  of  Ec- 
clesiastical Boards. 

The  friends  of  ecclesiastical  organizations  urged  that 
missionary  and  other  benevolent  olforts  to  convert  the 
world,  ought  to  be  under  the  control  of  the  church,  in  her 
distinctive  capacity ;  that  Presbyterians,  in  educating 
young  men  for  the  ministry  and  in  sending  ministers  to 
the  destitute  in  our  own  country  or  to  the  heathen,  ought 
not  to  co-operate  with  Congregationalists,  or  others,  in  a 
Voluntary  Society  ;  that  all  the  secular  and  financial  busi- 
ness of  the  work  of  missions  ought  to  be  under  the  super- 
vision of  the  General  Assembly  ;  that  upon  the  voluntary 
principle,  we  could  have  no  security  for  the  truth  and  or- 
der of  the  church. 

The  friends  of  the  voluntary  principle  were  the  active 
friends  of  missions  and  other  benevolent  efforts.     They 


61 

considered  themselves  free  to  unite  with  others,  in  any 
wiiy  that  would  promise  success.  They  conceded  to  the 
church  the  right  and  power  to  preserve  doctrinal  purity 
and  discipline.  But  they  denied  to  the  church  any  power 
to  control  the  property  of  her  members.  They  cherished 
a  liigh  regard,  upon  principle,  for  associations  which  were 
"free  and  voluntary,  unsupported  by  civil  and  ecclesiasticai 
power." 

They  urged  that  the  Great  Head  of  the  church  left  it  to 
h"is  people  to  act  volunlarihj  in  their  efforts  to  evangelize 
the  world.  He  left  it  to  the  conscience  of  each  disciple, 
howmuch\\Q  \\o\x\6i  give,  andybr  ivhat,  Tind  through  ivhat 
channel,  and  in  this,  to  be  iincontrolled  by  any  church 
court. 

They  urged,  that  the  Presbyterian  church  was  only  a 
small  part  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  to  confine  the  ef 
forts  of  our  members  to  our  party  organizations  was  a- 
dopting  an  exclusive,  sectarian  policy  unauthorized  by 
tlie  Word  of  God  ;  that  Jesus  Christ  did  not  range  his  peo- 
ple under  sectarian  banners,  that  they  might  manifest 
more  zeal  for  a  party  than  for  our  common  evangelical 
Christianity. 

It  was  also  urged,  that  our  General  Assembly,  as  a 
church  court,  was  not  calculated  to  conduct  efficiently  the 
benevolent  enterprises  of  the  age.  The  members  of  the 
Assembly  live  far  apart — are  changed  generally  every 
year — know  comparatively  little  of  the  work,  and  are  to- 
gether only  a  few  days.  The  Boards  of  their  appointment 
were  the  most  irresponsible  of  any — not  answerable  to 
the  public-— only  to  the  Assembly — exhibiting  an  unlove- 
\y  feature  that  has  caused  even  Old  School  men  to  call 
such  a  contrivance    "a  Presbyterian  hierarchy.'''' 

The  supervision  of  these  Boards  by  the  Assembly  must 
ever  be  exceedingly  imperfect,  rather  a  hindrance  to  their 
energetic  and  healthful  action  :  or,  when  there  is  misman- 
agement, this  supervision  might  be  made  a  cloak  to  hide 
abuses  from  the  public  eye. 

It  was  furthermore  urged,  that  the  General  Assembly 
was  constituted,  as  a  bond  of  union,  for  the  preservation 
of  truth  and  order  ;  not  to  attend  to  the  secular  affairs  of 
schools,  colleges,  seminaries  of  learning,  boards,  &c.  And 
especially  that  the  handling  of  large  sums  of  the  money  be- 
6 


62 

ionging  to  the  various  societies  would  hazard  the  spiritual 
utiairs  of  the  church,  by  presenting  temptations  to  avarice, 
umbition,  jealousy,  intrigue,  bargain,  &c.  And  that  it 
was  dangerous  to  give  to  our  General  Assembly  legisla- 
tive, judicial,  and  exeaitive po7ver,  ixW  backed  by  the  large 
and  increasing  funds  of  the  church  ;  and  that  nothing  was 
better  calculated  to  hasten  the  corruption,  and  secure  the 
overthrow  of  the  church  than  such  a  concentration  of 
power. 

The  controversy  about  the  American  Home  Missionary 
•Society  has  already  been  noticed.  That  about  the  A.  B. 
0.  F,  Missions  will  be  in  its  proper  place. 


(  03) 


CHAPTER  IX. 


ASSEMBLY  OF  1831-MR.  BARNES'  CASE--RE-EXAMINA- 
TION— ELECTIVE  AFFINITY. 


The  struggle  about  the  American  Home  Missionary  Soci* 
ety  had  thrown  the  church  into  commotion,  before  Iho 
case  of  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes  came  up.  This,  however,  aid- 
ed in  keeping  up  the  excitement  between  tlie  parties. 

In  1830,  Mr.  Barnes  received  a  call  to  become  the  pas- 
tor of  the  First  Presbyterian  church  in  Philadelphia.  TJio 
minority  of  the  Philadelphia  Presbytery  tried  lo  prevent 
his  becoming  pastor  of  said  church.  In  this  thev  were 
overruled  by  the  majority.  They  then  insisted  on  the 
right  to  examine  him  respgciing  hii  theologyi  In  xhls 
they  were  also  overruled.  They  then  Qompluined  to  iha 
^ynod  of  Philadelphin.  Tho  Synod  referred  the  ccim- 
plainants  back  to  the  Presbytery,  and  ordered  the  Presby' 
tery  to  hear  and  decide  upon  their  objections  to  the  or- 
thodoxy of  Mr.  fciarnes'  Sermon,  styled  "The  Way  of 
Salvation." 

By  this  time,  the  minority  of  Presbytery  had  become 
the  majority.  The  case  was  then  referred  to  the  General 
Assembly.  The  following  resolutions  were  there  a- 
dopted  : 

"1.  Resolved,  That  the  General  Assembly,  while  it  np. 
predates  the  conscientious  zeal  for  the  purity  of  the 
church,  by  which  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  is  be- 
lieved to  have  been  actuated,  in  its  proceedings  in  the  case 
of  Mr.  Barnes;  and  while  it  judges  that  the  sermon,  by 
Mr.  Barnes,  entitled  "The  Way  of  Salvation,"  contains 
a  number  of  unguarded  and  objectionable  passages  ;  yet 
is  of  the  opinion,  that,  especially  after  the  explanations 
which   were  given  by  him  of  those  passages,  the  Prcsby- 


64 

tsry  ought  to  have  suffered  the  whole  to  pass  without  fur- 
tiier  notice. 

2.  Resolved,  That  in  the  judgment  of  this  Assembly, 
the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  ought  to  suspend  all  fur- 
ther proceedings  in  the  case  of  .Mr.  Burnes." 

This  cnse  gave  rise  to  two  other  questions,  viz  : — 1. 
Wlieiher  Presbyteries  have  the  right  to  re-exaviine  minis- 
ters coming  to  them,  with  clean  papers,  from  other  Pres- 
byteries ?  and  2.  Whether  it  was  unconstitutional  to  di- 
vide Presbyteries  upon  the  principle  of  £/ec/ire  Ajjinityl 

The  Old  School  contended  for  the  right  to  re-examine 
ministers,  coming  from  other  Presbyteries.  They  con- 
tended, and  with  much  phiusibility,  that  every  society 
ought  to  judge  of  the  qualifications  of  its  own  members. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  was  urged,  that  the  Presbyteries 
were  only  parts  of  one  great  society,  the  qualifications  of 
whose  members  are  to  be  judged  of  according  to  the  Book 
of  Discipline.  Indeed  the  action  of  the  church,  in  the 
higiiest  judicature,  has  been  against  this  practice.  Our 
present  revised  form  of  government  was  adopted  by  the 
lieneral  Assembly  in  1821.  On  the  same  page  with  the 
record  ot   the  adoption,  are  the  following  minutes: 

'•The  following  Overture,  from  the  Presbytery  of  Balti- 
more, was  received  and  read,  viz: 

That  af  er  the  twelfth  article  of  the  tenth  Chapter  of 
the  revised  Form  of  Governmen',  the  following  be  added  :" 
Tiiirteenth.  Every  Prfs^iytery  shall  judge  of  ll'C  quali- 
fications  pf  iis  oivn  members.     On  motion, 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  grant  the  request 
contained  in  tho  above  oveiture  ;  or  mahe  any  new  alte- 
rations at  present  in  tlie  BooU  of  Discipline." 

It  would  seem  from  this,  that  the  Baltimore  Presbytery 
thought  that  the  Book  of  Discipline  did  not  give  them  the 
right  to  re-examine  those  in  good  standing  coming  from 
other  Presbyteries.  And  the  Assembly,  at  the  time  of  a- 
dopting  our  Form  of  Government,  thought  it  inexpedient  to 
adopt  such  regulation,  so  well  calculated  to  impair  confi- 
dence and  alienate  the  affections  of  the  ministers  of  one 
Presbvtery  from  those  of  another. 

The  contest  about  elective  affinity  was  of  similar  bear- 
ing. This  difficulty  grew  out  of  the  attempt  of  the  Phil- 
Philadelphia  Presbytery  to  prevent   the  setllerneQt  of  Mr» 


# 


65 


Barnes  as  pastor  of  the  First  Church  in  Philadelphia.  la 
1831,  the  General  Assembly  passed  the  following  res- 
olution : 

••Resolved,  That  :t  will  bf>  expedient,  as  soon  as  the  re- 
gular steps  can  be  taken,  to  divide  the  Presbytery  in  such 
a  way  as  will  be  best  calculated  to  promote  the  peace  of 
the  ministers  and  churches  belonging  to  the  Philadelphia 
Presbytery." 

According  to  the  usage  of  the  church,  for  many  years, 
and  to  the  powers  granted,  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Synod 
of  Philadelphia  to  do  this.  But  at  their  next  meeting 
they  refused,  the  majority  being  Old  School.  In  1832, 
certain  members  of  the  Philadelphia  Presbytery  presented 
to  the  General  Assembly  a  complaint  against  the  Synod, 
for  refusing  to  divide  the  Presbytery.  After  a  number  of 
days  spent  in  deliberation  on  the  subject,  the  Assembly 
erected  the  Second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  embracing 
Mr.  Barnes  and  thirteen  other  ministers,  and  fourteen^ 
churches.  This  measure  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  158 
to  33. 

This  new  Presbytery  was  not  bounded  by  any  lines  or 
streets,  but  composed  of  ministers  and  churches,  scatter- 
ed over  the  city  and  its  vicinity,  that  had  a  sjmpathy  for 
each  other.  It  was  evident  to  the  General  Assembly,  that 
there  was  no  prospect  of  the  two  parties  in  the  old  Pres- 
bytery acting  harmoniously.  The  New  School  in  the 
Presbytery,  being  in  a  minority,  stated  to  the  Assembly, 
that  they  were  straitened  in  their  work,  and  that  their  in- 
fluence and  usefulness  were  prevented  by  brethren  in  the 
same  Presbytery.  This  v/as  a  case  that  threatened  the 
peace  of  the  whole  church.  And  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
Assembly  to  promote  the  peace  of  the  church.  They  felt 
bound  to  make  an  effort  to  put  an  end  to  this  controversy. 
They,  therefore,  said  to  Drs.  Ely,  McAuley  and  others, 
take  your  brethren,  and  go  in  peace,  and  let  Dr.  Green 
and  his  friends  live  to  themselves  and  be  at  peace. 

In  this  controversy  the  Old  School  were  violent  against 
elective  affinity,  urging  that  it  was  absurd  and  unconstitu- 
tional for  a  Presbytery  to  have  no  geographical  limits,  or 
for  two  Presbyteries  to  cover  the  same  ground. 

The  other  party  urged,   that    the  Assembly  had  a  right 
to  erect  a  Presbytery — that  the  peace  of  the  church  de- 
6^ 


66 

mrfn^dit — that  the  Assembly  had  before  done  it — and  that 
the  elective  atliiiity  jirinciple  had  been  acquiesced  in,  very 
happilv,  by  the  Old  School,  when  it  had  operated  to  in- 
crease their  power,  as  in  the  case  of  the  union  with  the 
Associate  Reformed  Church  in  1821.  According  to  that 
jilan,  as  adopted  by  the  Assembly,  the  aflinity  principle  is 
fully  carried  out.  One  article  of  that  plan  was  as  fol- 
lows : 

"The  different  Presbyteries  of  the  Associate  Reform- 
ed Church  shall  either  retain  their  separate  organization, 
or  shall  be  amalgamated  with  those  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly at  their  own  choice.  In  the  former  case  [by  elective 
aflinity]  ihey  shall  have  as  full  powers  and  privileges  as 
any  other  Presbytery  in  the  united  body. 

in  this  case,  the  Assembly  which  adopted  our  revised 
Form  of  Government,  allowed  those  Presbyteries,  coming 
to  us  from  another  body,  to  retain  their  former  organiza- 
tion. One  of  them  did  this.  And  thus  the  General  As- 
sembly permitted  two  Presbyteries — an  Assembly  Presby- 
tery and  an  Associate  Presbytery — to  cover  the  same 
ground  and  have  jurisdiction  over  the  same  territory. 

It  was,  therefore,  urged  by  the  friends  of  the  Second 
Presbytery,  that  it  was  strange,  that  the  elective  affinity 
principle  could  give  Presbyterial  existence  to  Seceders  and 
not  to  Presbyterians! 

The  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  being  Old  Schoo',  in  the  fall 
of  1832  refused  to  receive  the  delegates  from  the  Second 
Presbytery,  and  declared  the  Act  of  the  (^4eneral  Assem- 
bly, in  forming  the  Second  Presbytery,  unconstitutional 
and  void  !  The  Assembly  of  1838  would  not  submit  to  the 
dictation  of  the  Synod,  but  adhered  to  the  principles  of  the 
former  Assembly. 

In  the  fall  of  1833,  the  Synod  so  far  yielded  to  the  au- 
thoiity  of  the  General  Assembly  as  to  admit  the  Second 
Presbytery  to  membership.  But  the  Synod  then  formed 
a  new  division,  regardless  of  the  recommendation  of  the 
Assembly.  The  Assembly  again,  in  1834,  shewed  a  de- 
termination to  carry  out  their  measures,  in  sustaining  the 
Second  Presbytery.  And  to  prevent  further  difficulty 
with  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  they  erected  a  new  Syn- 
od, the  Synod  of  Delaware,  throwing  the  Second  Pres- 
bytery into  a  new  Synodical  relation. 


67 

In  1835,  the  Assembl} ,  (the  Old  School  having^a  ma- 
jority,) dissolved  the  Synod  of  Delaware,  and  threw  the 
Second  Presbytery  baclt  into  the  Synod  of  Piiil-idelphia. 
The  Synod  at  their  meeting  in  the  fall  dissolved  the  Pres- 
bytery. The  Assembly  again,  in  1836,  (the  New  School 
again  having  a  majority,)  stood  by  the  mnjority.  But  as 
the  Synod  now  had  a  Stcond  Presbytery,  the  Assembly's 
Second  Presbytery  was  named  the  Third  Presbytery 
of  Philadelphia.  The  Assembly,  however,  at  this  time 
assigned  geographical  limits  to  their  Presbytery,  in  the 
belief  and  (Teneral  understandina;  that  it  was  to  terminate 
the  dispute  in  relation  to  the  alleged  unconstitutional  ex- 
istence of  the  Presbytery,  on  the  ground  of  elective  affin- 
ity. But  this  arrangement  was  of  short  duration  ;  for  the 
next  Assembly,  being  Old  School,  in  their  work  of  re- 
form,   swept  this  Presbytery  from  existence! 

It  ought  not  to  be  forgotten,  that  after  the  trial  of  .Mr. 
Barnes,  and  during  these  contentions  about  elective  affin- 
ity, &c.     Dr.  Miller,  a  Professor  in  the  Theological  Semi- 
nary at  Princeton,  wrote  his  famous  ^^ Letters  to  Preslyte- 
riajis,  on  the  present  crisis  in  the  Preslyirian  Church  in 
the    United  States."     They    were  extensively    circulated 
."hnd  read.     Coming   from    the  seat  of  orthodoxy,  impor- 
tance was  attached  to  them,  and  they  exerted  an  influence 
— an  influence,  though  not  intended,  yet  injurious  to  the 
church.     They    contributed  to   the  alarms  and  suspicions, 
which  afterwards  alienated  the  affection  and  confidence  of 
minister^  and  people,  and  to    the  strifes  which  resulted  in 
theschism  of  thechurch.    IManygood  things  were  smoothly 
said,  but    in  such  a  way  as  to  operate  wonderfully  in  un- 
dermining confidence  in  ministers,  and  leading  to   violent 
measures — such    measures  as  even  Dr.  Miller  did  not  an- 
ticipate, when  thus  fanning  the  flame — and  such  measures 
as  he  attempted  afterwards,   in  vain,  to  arrest,  when  he 
found  that  some  had  over-acted  their  part,  and  got  greatly 
in  advance  of  himself  in  seeing  the  dangers  of  the  church 
in  'Hhe  crisis." 

Among  the  violent  measures  referred  to  was  the  "Act 
and  Testimony,"  which  will  come  under  review  in  the 
next  Chapter. 


(68) 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE  ACT  AND  TESTIMONY. 


The  Old  School  party,  having  been  in  tho  minority  in 
the  Assembly  for  a  number  of  years,  became  so  restless 
in  the  Assembly  of  1834,  that  they  resolved  upon  a  sys- 
tem of  new  measures,  to  gain,  if  possible,  the  ascendency, 
that  they  might  carry  their  plans  in  the  church. 

Accordingly,  at  the  close  of  the  Assembly  of  1834,  a 
small  portion  of  that  body,  the  most  thorough-going  of 
the  Old  School,  had  a  meeting.  As  the  result  of  their 
deliberations,  they  drew  up  the  famous  "Act  and  TesH' 
viony,''^  which  was  signed  by  thirty-seven  ministers  and 
twenty-seven  elders.  '  It  was  designed  to  operate  as  a 
Test  Act,  and  thus  very  much  resembles  the  old  Solemn 
League  and  Covenant. 

As  it  has  been  regarded  the  entering  wedge  to  schism, 
and  has  exerted  much  influence,  it  ought  to  be  preserved, 
it  was  addressed  "to  the  Ministers,  Elders,  and  Private 
Members  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States."     It  begins  thus  : 

"Brethren  beloved  in  the  Lord  : — In  the  solemn 
crisis,  in  which  our  church  has  arrived,  we  are  constrain- 
ed to  appeal  to  you  in  relation  to  the  alarming  errors 
which  have  hitherto  been  connived  at,  and  now  at  length 
have  been  countenanced  and  sustained  by  the  acts  of  the 
supreme  judicatory  of  our  church. 

Constituting,  as  we  all  do,  a  portion  of  yourselves,  and 
deeply  concerned,  as  every  portion  of  the  system  must  be, 
in  all  that  affects  the  body  itself,  we  earnestly  address 
ourselves  to  you,  in  the  full  belief,  that  the  dissolution  of 
our  church,  or  what  is  worse,  its  corruption  in  all  that 


Q9 

once  distinguished  its  peculiar  tesiimony,  can,  under  God, 
be  prevented  only  by  you. 

From  the  highest  judicatory  of  our  church,  we  have 
for  several  years  in  succession  sought  the  redress  of  our 
grievances,  and  have  not  only  sought  it  in  vain,  but  vvitli 
an  aggravation  of  the  evils  of  which  we  have  complain- 
ed," &c. 

The  whole  is  too  lengthy  for  insertion  here.  Its  spirit 
may  be  judged  of  from  the  above  quotation.  The  attempt 
was  made  to  alarm  the  churches.  The  burden  of  the 
document  was  about  '■^  doctrine''^ — '■^disciplined'' — and 
"■church  order.''''  It  charged  upon  the  New  School  the 
grossest  heresies  and  disorders. 

It  appeared  in  Kentucky  in  the  Western  Luminary,  of 
13th  August,  1834.  The  editor  of  that  paper,  who  is  an 
Old  School  man,  said  of  this  document — "We  give  it  sim- 
ply as  an  article  of  news — a  portion  of  the  history  of  the 
times.  We  think  it  but  due,  however,  to  our  brethren  of 
the  ministry  and  eldership  of  this  region,  to  state  that  so 
far  as  our  acquaintance  ex'ends,  we  know  of  no  one  who 
holds  any  of  the  doctrinal  views  which  are  justly  designa- 
ted as  errors  in  the  Act  and  Testimony."  This  docu- 
ment met  the  npprobation  of  a  very  small  number  of  the 
Synods  or  Presbyteries.  Some  objected  to  it,  because 
they  denied  to  a  few  ministers  and  elders  the  right  of  re- 
quiring the  church  to  subscribe  a  new  Test  Act.  Others 
disapproved  of  it,  because  they  considered  it  a  slander  on 
the  General  Assembly  and  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
And  many  opposed  it,  because  they  regarded  the  measures 
proposed,  in  the  language  of  the  Princeton  brethren, 
^'e.} i ra'Constiful ionaJ  and  revolutionary,^^  and  designed  "/o 
effect  the  division  of  the  Church.'^ 

The  Act  and  Testimony  was  reviewed,  and  severely 
censured  by  the  Princeton  Professors,  in  the  Biblical 
Repertory,  a  decidedly  Old  School  periodical,  and  as  such, 
the  organ  of  the  party.  A  few  extracts  from  their  re- 
view  will  shew  in  what  light  they  viewed  this  document. 
They  say  : 

"Had  the  meeting  in  Philadelphia,  therefore,  been  con- 
tended to  send  forth  their  solemn  testimony  against  error 
and  disorder,  and  their  earnest  exhortation  to  increased 
fidelity  to  God  and  h'\s  truthj  we  are  sure  oQne  could  i'et\» 


70 

sonably  object."  "But  when  it  is  proposed  to  numler 
the  people  ;  to  request  and  urge  the  signing  of  this  Testi- 
mony as  a  test  of  orthodoxy,  then  its  whole  nature  and 
design  is  at  once  altered." 

"Here  is  one  of  the  most  serious  evils  of  the  whole 
plan.  It  makes  one  a  heretic,  or  an  abettor  of  heresy, 
not  for  error  in  doctrine,  not  for  unfaithfulness  in  disci- 
pline, but  because  he  may  be  unable  to  adopt  an  extended 
document  as  expressing  iiis  own  opinions  on  a  multitude 
of  facts,  doctrines  and  practical  counsels.  This  is  an  as- 
sumption which  ought  not  to  be  allowed.  It  is  an  act  of 
gross  injustice  to  multitudes  of  our  soundest  and  best 
men  ;  it  is  the  most  effectual  means  of  splitting  the  church 
into  mere  fragments,  and  of  alienating  from  each  other 
men  who  agree  in  doctrine,  in  views  of  order  and  disci- 
pline, and  who  differ  in  nothing,  perhaps,  but  in  opinion 
as  to  the  wisdom  of  introducing  this  new  League  and 
Covenant." 

"Our  first  leading  objection,  then,  to  this  document  is, 
that  it  is  not  what  it  professes  to  be,  a  Testimony,  but  a 
Test." 

"Is  it  then  true,  that  the  highest  judicatory  of  our 
rhurch  has  'countenanced  nnd  sustained'  the  doctrine, 
that  we  have  no  more  to  do  with  tho  sin  of  Adam  than 
with  tiio  sins  of  any  other  parent — that  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  original  sin — thai  man's  regeneration  is  his  ovv4i 
act — that  Christ's  sufferings  are  not  truly  and  properly 
vicarious?  How  serious  the  responsibility  of  announcing 
to  the  world  that  such  is  the  case."  "We  do  not  believo 
it  to  be  true." 

"Is  it  to  be  expected  that,  at  this  time  of  the  day,  the 
Assembly  would  solemnly  condemn  all  who  do  not  hold 
the  doctrine  of  a  limited  atonement?" 

Here  is  a  developoment  not  often  made.  It  is  taken 
for  granted  that  "a  liiuifed  aionemenf^  is  the  doctrine  of 
the  Old  School,  but  that  the  Assembly  ought  not  to  con- 
demn  those  who  believe  in  a  general  atonement!  But  to 
go  on  with  our  extracts  : 

"We  cannot  but  regard,  therefore,  the  recommendation 
of  this  document,  that  churches  and  ministers  consider 
certain  acts  of  the  Assembly    unconstitutional,  as  a  re- 


71 

commendation  to  them  to  renounce  their  allegiance  to  the 
church,  and  to  disregard  their  promises  of  obedience." 

"Division,  then,  is  the  end  to  which  this  enterprise 
leads,  and  to  which,  we  doubt  not  it  aims."  Here  in  a 
note  the  writers  say  :  "Since  writing  the  above,  we  see 
-  that  this  intention  is  denied  in  the  Presbyterian.  We 
have  heard  other  signers  of  the  Act  and  Testimony,  how- 
ever, very  distinctly  avow  their  desire  to  effect  a  division 
of  the  church." 

"The  point  now  before  us,  however,  is  the  true  nature 
of  its  recommendations.  Wo  say  they  are  extra-consti- 
tutional and  revolutionary,  and  should  be  opposed  by  all 
tho-^e  who  do  not  believe  that  the  crisis  demands  the  disso- 
lution of  the  church." 

"We  have  more  than  once  remarked,  that  this  recom- 
mendation was  designed  to  necessitate  either  the  annul- 
ling of  the  acts  of  the  Assembly  complained  of,  or  the 
division  of  the  church.  It  was  designed  to  make  a  case 
from  which  there  could  be  no  escape ;  to  assume  such  a 
position  as  would  produce  a  state  of  confusion  and  difficul' 
ty  perfectly  intolerable,  in  order  that  the  Assembly  should 
be  forced  either  to  retract  or  submit  to  have  the  church 
divided."  [We  quote  from  the  Western  Luminary,  No- 
vember 19,  1834,  and  March  4,  1835.] 

Here  the  spirit  of  the  Act  and  Testimony  men — the 
spirit  that  finally  triumphed  among  the^Old  School,  is 
forcibly  stated  by  the  Princeton  brethren,  themselves  Old 
School.  They  determined,  '■Hhat  the  Assembly  should  he 
forced  to  retract,  or  suhmit  to  have  the  church  divided.''^ 
That  is,  they  determined  to  rule  the  church  or  rend  it. 

This  controversy  about  the  Act  and  Testimony  had 
well  nigh  broken  up  the  friendship  of  its  reputed  author, 
the  Rev.  R.  J.  Breckinridge,  and  the  Princeton  brethren. 
Indeed,  it  was  regarded  as  something  novel,  that  Mr. 
Breckinridge,  who  in  1832  was  an  Elder  in  the  Assem- 
bly, should  in  1834  regard  himself  as  the  great  champion 
of  order  and  orthodoxy.  But  no  less  strange  than  true, 
his  measures  at  last  triumphed  over  the  Princeton  fathers, 
and  hosts  of  others,  who  had  never  seen  the  dangers  to 
which  the  church  was  exposed  till  Mr.  Breckinridge 
found  his  way  into  the  church ! ! 


72 

TliQ  above  extracts  from  the  Repertory  will  show  clear- 
ly, that  the  Act  and  Testimony  was  not  well  received  by 
tiie  wisest  and  best  men  among  the  Old  School.  They 
regarded  it  as  a  Grecian  horse,  full  of  danger,  though  pro- 
fessedly a  voio  to  orthodoxy.  They  raised  a  warning 
voice,  like  the  faithful  priest  of  Troy  : 

"  Aut  haec  in  nostros  fabr'cata  est  machina  muros, 
Inspectura  domos,  venturaque  desnper  urbi  ; 
Aut  aliquis  latet  error  :  equo  ne  credite,  Teucri." 

Of  course,  it  was  very  odious  to  the  New  School,  view- 
ed by  them  as  the  entering  wedge  of  schism.  Indeed, 
the  subsequent  history  of  the  church  shows,  that  it  was 
at  the  time  fairly  interpreted  and  fully  understood. 

But  10  show  how  it  was  regarded  by  other  denomina- 
tions, a  few  extracts  are  given  from  the  Christian  Specta- 
tor, a  quarterly  periodical,  among  the  Congregationalists. 
The  reviewer  of  the  Act  and  Testimony  in  that  Journal 
says: 

"What  then  is  the  Act  and  Testimony  1  It  is  a  new 
confession  of  faith,  or  a  recently  invented  test  of  ortho- 
dox;/, agreed  upon,  subscribed,  and  published,  by  thirty- 
seven  ministers,  and  twenty-seven  elders  of  the  Presby- 
terian church,  at  the  close  of  the  last  General  Assembly 
in  Philadelphia."  "The  introduction  does  not  abound  in 
the  qualities  of  conciliation,  which  some  masters  of  rhet- 
oric tell  us,  ought  to  be  prominent  in  this  part  of  a  dis- 
course. It  is  more  in  keeping  with  the  habits  of  a  wes- 
tern huntsman ;  for  it  takes  the  beast  by  the  horns  at  the 
very  outset  of  the  battle.  Or,  to  pass  by  one  bold  stride 
from  the  wilderness  to  the  ocean,  these  ^c^  and  Testimony 
brethren  are  no  sooner  embarked,  than  they  nail  the  flag 
of  nullification  to  the  mast." 

"The  subscribers  of  this  document  begin  by  a  practical 
renunciation  of  their  whole  system  ;  and  if  their  solemn 
manifesto  proves  any  thing,  it  proves,  that,  quoad  hoc, 
they  are  not  Presbyterians.  They  have  erected  a  new 
tribunal,  unknown  to  their  standards;  and  before  this 
voluntary  and  irresponsible  association,  they  arraign  all 
delinquents,  whether  the  peccant  General  Assembly,  or 
ministers  suspected  of  heresy." 


7S 

'•The  subscribers  of  this  docuiiient  avow  their  ^i'?i  ad- 
herence to  tlieii"  standards  of  ecclesiastical  order,  while 
the  very  documjiit  in  which  they  make  this  profession, 
is,  both  rii  essence  and  action,  at  war  with  the  whole  sys- 
tem. They  acquit  themselves  of  all  responsi'jiiity  for 
the  suhcersion  of  forms  jmhlicJij  and  rejiealedh/  ap- 
proved;  while  they  are  subverting  those  very ybr/MS  them- 
selves. They  tcl!  us,  that  they  are  laboring  for  the  resto- 
ration of  scriptural  order  to  their  church;  and  yet  they 
attempt  tliat  reformation  by  means  which  contravene 
their  own  notions  of  ecclesiastical  organization.  They 
intend,  if  possible,  to  exclude  from  the  cliurch,  those  wlio 
suhcerl  her  established  forms;  ani  yet,  in  compassing 
this  end,  they  themselves  perpetrate  t!ie  act  of  subver- 
sion." "They  believe  that  the  form  of  government  of  the 
Preshyterian  Church  accords  with  the  will  of  God,  and 
deprecate  every  thing  that  changes  its  essential  character ; 
wiiile,  in  their  practice,  they  are  fast  verging  to  Congre- 
gationalism— a  form  of  government  at  which  they  almost 
instinctivelv  shudder."  [Quarterly  Christian  S[>ectator, 
March,  1835,] 

The  A:t  and  Testimony  was  coisidired  a  document  of 
little  intrinsic  value.  Yet  its  relative  influence  proved  to 
be  great.  It  was  a  bold  nullification  measure,  well  calcu- 
lated to  marslial  every  restless  and  belligerent  spirit—to 
create  a  panic  among  the  lovers  of  truth  who  were  unin- 
formed, and  to  cause  the  intelligent  friends  of  peace  and 
order  to  mourn  over  an  antici[)ated  and  bitter  strife,  and 
the  most  fearless  heart  to  tremble  for  the  integrity  of  the 
church  and  the  honor  of  religion.  It  may  inJced  be  ques- 
tioned, whether  any  document,  since  the  days  of  the 
Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  has  ever  proved  so  ruinous 
to  the  Presbyterian  Church  as  the  Act  and  Testimony. 
Here  the  controversy  began  in  good  earnest.  These  mvn'. 
a  small  minority,  virtually  declared,  that  they  would  rule 
or  rend  the  church;  or,  in  the  language  of  the  Princeton 
Professors,  '■'•that  the  Assemhhj  should  he  forced  eilher  to 
retract,  or  submit  to  have  the  church  divided.''  What 
was  now  to  be  done?  Must  the  majority  consent  to  be 
ruled  by  the  minority,  rather  than  udtness  the  sin  and 
sorrow  of  division?     Moderate  Ok!  School  rnen,  and  mod* 


74 


prate  New  School  men  yielded,  one  after  another,  until 
the  Act  and  Testimony  men  gained  the  ascendency,  and 
fit  last  the  work  of  schism  was  carried  forward  with 
fearful  despatch  in  the  excindmg  acts  of  1837,  and  the 
velorm  act?  ard  ordinances  of  18BS. 


(75) 


CHAPTER  XL 

GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  OF  1835. 


This  year  the  General  'Assembly  met  at  Pittsburj'h. 
The  week  before  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly,  the  OKI 
School  Convention  met  at  the  same  place,  in  obedience  Lo 
the  call  of  the  Act  and  Testimony.  The  Convention 
party  succeeded  in  bringing  into  the  Assembly  a  mnjority 
of  Old  School  men,  and  in  controlling  the  body  that  year.. 

When  the  Assembly  met,  the  Convention  had  a  lengthy 
''Memorial"  ready  for  their  action.  In  it  they  complain- 
ed of  some  eight  grievances  of  this  nature,  viz. : 

1.  That  the  Assembly  would  not  sanction  a  re-exami- 
nation of  ministers  going  from  one  Presbytery  to  another. 

2.  That  the  Assembly  would  not  condemn  a  book  ir- 
respective of  its  author. 

3.  That  the  Assembly  had  favored  the  elective  affinHij 
principle. 

4.  That  the  Assembly  permitted  the  American  Home 
^lissionary  Society  to  operate  in  the  bounds  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church. 

5.  That  the  Church  had  been  too  lax  in  the  education 
of  young  men  for  the  ministry. 

0.  That  the  Plan  of  Union  of  1801  had  not  workeJ. 
well  for  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

7.  That  the  Plans  of  Union  and  Correspondence  wu!). 
New  England  and  other  churches  were  dangerous  U) 
truth  and  order. 

8.  That  the  General  Assembly  had  not  been  sufficient- 
ly concerned  for  the  orthodoxy  of  the  church. 

This,  in  few  words,  is  the  sum  of  that  long  document. 
It  was  referred  to  a  Committee.  Their  report  was  fa- 
vorable to  this  Memorial.  The  Assembly  decided,  that 
the    Presbytery    had  a    r^ght    to   re-examine — that   any 


76 

'-■Kiivch  court  had  a  right  to  censure  an  author's  book,  ir- 
respective of  the  author,  and  that  the  erection  ol"  Pres- 
byteries upon  the  principle  of  elective  affinity  was  con- 
trary to  the  spirit  of  our  form  of  government.  They 
;>!so  ordered,  that  the  Synod  of  Delaware  should  be  dis- 
solved "at  and  after  the  meeting  of  the  Synod  of  Phila- 
delphia in  October  next."  Thus  the  Assembly's  Second 
Presbytery  was  thrown  back  into  the  old  Synod. 

'i'hc  Assembly  were  unwilling  to  carry  out  the  policy 
cf  the  Mctiiorialists  in  reference  to  Voluntary  Associa- 
tions. On  this  subject  they  said:  "It  is  not  expedient  to 
prohibit,  within  our  bounds,  the  operations  of  the  Home 
Missionary  Society,  or  of  the  Presbyterian  Education  So- 
ciety, or  any  other  Voluntary  Association  not  subject  to 
our  control." 

They  were  of  the  opinion,  that  it  was  not  desirable  that 
the  Plan  of  Union  of  ISOl  should  any  longer  operate  in 
the  Presbyterian  church. 

They  also  expressed  their  readiness  to  condemn  "Pela- 
gian and  Arminian  errors,"  and  exhorted  all  our  Presby- 
teries and  Synods  to  exercise  the  utmost  vigilance  in 
guarding  against  the  introduction  and  publication  of  such 
pestiferous  errors.'' 

As  the  Old  School  had  the  majority  in  this  Assembly, 
and  carried  most  of  their  measures,  and  as  the  New 
School  were  disposed  peaceably  to  submit  to  the  action  of 
the  Assembly,  there  was  a  cheering  prospect  of  a  better 
state  of  things. 


CHAPTER  XIL 

THE  FO:iEIGN  MISS:ON  QUESTION— ASSEMBLY  OF  1836 


The  subject  of  Foreign  Missions  came  up  in  thr- 
Assembly  of  1835.  and  produced  an  unpleasant  contro- 
versy. 

The  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreigr: 
?Jissions  was  organized  in  1810 — vl  vohtntarii  association  ; 
so  constituted  as  to  enlist  the  co-operation  of  the  Presbvr 
terian,  Congregational  and  Dutch  Reformed  Churche-. 
A  number  of  years  after  that,  the  Western  Foreign  Mis- 
sionary Society  was  formed — an  ecclesiastical  society/. 
under  the  control  of  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh. 

In  the  Assembly  of  1835,  the  "Committee  of  Bills  and 
Overtures"  reported  an  overture  in  relation  to  Foreign  Mis- 
sions. A  Committee  was  appointed.  They  reported  and 
recommended,  that  it  was  the  conviction  of  the  General 
Assembly,  that  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  her  ^'distinc- 
tive character,''^  ought  to  send  the  Gospel  to  the  heathen, 
and  that  a  committee  be  appointed  to  confer  with  the 
Synod  of  Pittsburgh  on  the  subject  of  the  transfer  of  the 
Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society  to  the  General  As- 
sembly, and  report  to  the  next  Assembly. 

In  the  Assembly  of  1835,  there  were  twa  hundred  and 
thirty-four  members  who  had  a  right  to  vote.  But  near 
the  close  of  the  Assembly,  when  nearly  two  thirds  of  the 
members  had  left,  the  following  resolution  was  adopted, 
viz: 

^^ Resolved,  That  the  Committee  appointed  to  confer 
with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh,  on  the  subject  of  the  trans- 
fer of  the  supervision  of  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary 

Society  to  the  General   Assembly,  be  authorized,  if  they 

rrv 


should  approve  or^tfie  said  transfer,  to  ratify  and  confirm 
the  same  witli  the  Synod,  and  report  the  same  to  the  next 
(Teneral  Assembly."     Minutes  of  1835,  p.  33. 

Of  this  attempt,  in  such  a  way,  to  undermine  the  A- 
mericrtn  B.  C.  F.  Missions,  the  New  Scliool  greatly  com- 
plained. 

'i'iie  Committee,,  in  the  fall  of  1835,  submitted  to  the 
Synod  of  Pittsburgh,  "Terms  of  A-greement."  They  were 
nccepted  by  the  Synod. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly,  in  1S36,  tliese 
"Terms,"  ratified  and  confirmed,  not  by  the  Church,  nor 
by  the  Presbyteries,  nor  by  the  General  Assembly,  l)Ut  by 
a  committee  of  five  men,  were  submitted  to  the  Genera! 
As!5^mbl3^  They  were  committed  to  Drs.  Phillips  and 
Skinner,  and  Messrs.  Scovel,  Dunlap  and  Ewing.  The 
majority  of  the  Committee  reported  favorably  to  the  Terms- 
of  Agreement.  Among  other  things  they  say  : 
.  "Jt  appears,  then,  to  your  Committee,  thai  the  Assem- 
jbly  have  entered  into  a  solemn  compact  with  the  Synod  of 
Pittsburgh,  and  that  there  remains  but  one  righteous  course 
to  pursue,  which  is,  to  adopt  the  report  of  the  Committee 
appointed  last  year,  and  to  appoint  a  Foreign  .Missionary 
Board.  To  pause  now,  or  to  annul  the  doings  of  the  last 
Assembly  in  this  matter,  would  be  obviously  a  violation  of 
contract,  a  breach  of  trust,  and  a  departure  from  that 
good  faith  which  should  be  sacredly  kept  between  man 
and  man,  and  especially  between  christian  societies  ;  con- 
duct, which  would  be  utterly  unworthy  of  this  venerable 
body  and  highly  injurious  to  the  Western  Foreign  Mis- 
sionary Society." 

They  recommended  the  adoption  of  the  following  reso- 
lutions^ viz. : 

"1.  Eesolced,  That  this  report  of  the  Committee,  ap* 
pointed  by  the  last  General  Assembly  to  confer  with 
the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh  on  the  subject  of  a  transfer  of 
the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society  to  the  General 
Assembly,  be  adopted,  and  that  said  transfer  be  accepted 
on  the  terms  of  agreement  therein  contained. 

2.  Resolved,  That  the  Assembly  will  proceed  to  ap- 
point a  Foreign  Missionary  Board,  the  seat  of  whose 
t^peratioQs  shall  be  in  New  York." 


K 


Dr.  Skinner,- as  the  minority  of  the  Commiitee,  pre- 
sented the  following  counter  report,  viz. : 

"Whereas,  ihe  Am.  B.  C.  F.  Missions  has  been  connect- 
ed with  the  Presbyterian  church  from  the  year  of  its  in-- 
corporation,  by  the  very  elements  of  its  existence;  and 
whereas,  at  the  present  time,  the  majority  of  the  whole  of 
the  Board  are  Presbyterians;  and  whereas,  it  is  undesira- 
ble, in  conducting  the  work  of  Foreign  Missions,  that 
there  should  be  any  collision  at  home  or  abroad  :  there- 
fore, 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient,  that  the  Assembly 
should  organize  a  separate  Foreign  Missionary  Institu- 
tion." 

After  a  long  debate,  the  plan  proposed  'by  the  Com- 
mittee was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  111  to  106,  which  ex- 
hibited a  majority  of  five  for  the  New  School,  or  against 
an  ecclesiastical  organization. 

Against  this  decision,  Dr.  Miller  offered  a  protest 
signed  by  eighty-two  members  of  the  Assembly,  it  was 
entered  on  the  Minutes,  and  was  as  follows: 

"The  undersigned  would  solemnly  protest  against  the 
decision  of  the  General  i^ssembly,  whereby  the  report  of 
the  Committee  of  the  last  General  Assembly  respecting, 
the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society  was  rejected : 
for  the  fbllowijig  reasons,  viz.  : 

1.  Because  wc  consider  the  decision  of  the  Assembly 
in  this  case  as  an  unjustifiable  refusal  to  carry  into  effect 
a  so'emn  contract  svith  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh,  duly 
ratified  and  confirmed  under  the  autborit}''  of  the  las:  As- 
sembly. 

2.  Because  we  are  impressed  with  the  deepest  convic- 
tion, that  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  her  ecclesiasticar 
capacity,  is  bound,  in  obedience  to  the  command  of  her 
Divine  Head  and  Lord,  to  send  the  glorious  gospel,-  as 
far  as  may  be  in  her  power,  to  every  creature;  and  we 
consider  the  decision  of  the  Assembly  in  this  case  as  a 
direct  refusal  to  obey  this  command,  and  to  pursue  one 
of  the  great  objects  for  which  the  church  was  founded. 

3.  Because  it  is  our  deliberate  persuasion  that  a  large 
part  of  the  energy,  zeal  and  resources  of  the  Presbyterian 
church   cannot  be  called  into  action  in   the  Missionary 


so  ^ 

cause,  without  £he  establishment  of  a  Missionary  Board 
by  the  General  Assembly.  It  is  evident  that  no  other 
ecclesiasiical  organization,  by  fragments  of  the  church, 
can  be  formed,  which  will  unite,  satisfy,  and  call  forth 
the  zealous  co-operation  of  those  in  every  part  of  4he 
church  who  wish  for  a  general  Presbyterian  Board. 

4.  Because,  while  a  majority  of  the  Assembly  acknowl- 
edge that  they  had  a  Board  which  fully  met  all  the  wants 
and  wishes  of  themselves  and  those  who  sympathized  with 
them,  they  refused  to  make  such  a  decision  as  would  ac- 
cord to  us  a  similar  and  equal  privilege  ;  thereby  as  v/o 
conceive,  refusing  that  which  would  have  been  only  just 
and  equal,  and  rejecting  a  plan  which  would  have  greatly 
extended  the  missionary  spirit,  and  exerted  a  reflex  bene- 
ficial influence  on  the  churches  thus  indulged  with  a  Board 
agreeable  to  their  views. 

5.  Because  to  all  these  considerations,  urged  with  a 
solemnity  and  affection,  the  majority  of  the  Assembly 
were  deaf^  aird  have  laid  us  under  the  necessity  of  pro- 
testing against  their  course,  and  of  complaining  that  we 
are  denied  a  most  reasonable,  and  to  us,  precious  privi- 
lege, and  of  lamenting  that  we  are  laid  under  the  necessi- 
ty of  resorting  to  plans  of  ecclesiastical  organization, 
complicated,  inconvenient,  and  much  more  adapted,  on  a 
variety  of  accounts,  to  interfere  with  ecclesiastical  har- 
mony   than  the  proposed  Board  could  have  been." 

A  committee  was  appointed  by  the  Assembly  to  answer 
this  protest.  Dr.  Peters,  the  Chairman,  presented  the 
following,  which  was  adopted  by  the  Assembly,  and  en- 
tered on  the  Minutes,  viz.  : 

"in  answer  to  the  protest  of  the  minority  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  on  the  subject  of  Foreign  Missions,  the 
majority  regard  it  as  due  to  the  churches  and  the  friends 
of  missions  generally,  to  stale  some  of  the  grounds  on 
which  they  have  declined  to  carry  into  effect  the  arrange- 
ment adopted  and  reported  by  the  Committee  of  the  last 
General  Assembly,  in  regard  to  the  West.  For.  Missionary 
Society. 

We  are  of  opinion, 

1.  That  the  powers  intended  to  be  conferred  upon  the 
above  Committee,  by  the  last  General  Assemb'y,to  ratify 


81 

and  confirm  the  transfer  of  the  said  Society  from  the 
Synod  of  Pittsburgh  to  the  C4enerdi  Assembly  on  such 
terms  as  the  said  Committee  might  approve,  are  altogeth- 
er unusual  and  unwarranted;  and  especially  that  it  was 
indiscreet  and  improper  for  that  Assembly  to  attempt  to 
confer  such  unlin^iited  po^yers  for  such  a  purpose,  in  the 
existing  state  of  our  churches,  upon  so  small  a  Committee, 
and  that  too  on  the  last  day  of  the  sessions  of  the  As- 
sembly, when  more  than  one  half  of  the  enrolled  mem- 
bers of  the  body  had  obtained  leave  of  absence,  and  had 
already  returned  to  their  homes. 

2.  That  it  was  unwarrantable  and  improper  for  the 
above  Committee,  in  the  exercise  of  the  extraordinary  pow- 
ers proposed  to  be  conferred  on  them,  to  incorporate  in 
their  agreement  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh  the  condi- 
tion, that  the  superversion  of  the  Missions  of  the  Mission- 
ary Board  intended  tobeorganized  should  never  be  aliena- 
ted by  the  General  Assembly,  thus  endeavoring  to  bind  ir- 
reversably  all  future  Assemblies  by  the  stipulations  of 
that  Committee. 

3.  It  is,  therefore,  our  deep  conviction  that  it  was  the 
duty  of  the  Assembly  to  resist  the  unwarrantable  and  ex- 
traordinary powers  of  the  above  Committee,  and  to  reject 
the  unreasonable  condition  of  the  contract  with  the  Syn- 
od of  Pittsburgh. 

4.  It  is  our  settled  belief  that  the  church  is  one  by  Divine 
constitution,  and  that  the  command  is  of  universal  obliga- 
tion— "Let  there  be  no  divisions  among  you,''  ond  that 
whatever  advantages  or  disadvantages  may  have  resulted 
from  the  division  of  the  church  into  numerous  denomina- 
tions, with  conflicting  opinions,  it  cannot  be  our  duty  as 
Christians,  to  perpetuate  and  extend  these  divisions,  by  in- 
corporating them  in  our  arrangements  to  spread  the  gospel 
in  heathen  lands.  We  cannot,  therefore,  regard  the  division 
of  the  Assembly,  in  this  case,  as  a  refusal  to  obey  the  com- 
mand of  the  Head  of  the  Church  to  preach  the  gospel  to  eve-- 
ry  creature.  That  command,  as  we  understand  it,  is  not  to 
the  Presbyterian  church  in  her  distinctive  ecclesiastical 
capacity,  but  to  the  tchole  church,  to  the  collective  body  of 
Christ's  disciples  of  every  name.  It  was  that  they  may 
the  more  effectually  oley  the  above  command,  by  uniting 


82 

with  Christians  of  other  denominations  in  the  noble  work 
of  foreign  missions,  that  the  Assembly  declined  to  carry 
into  effect  the  proposed  organization,  restricted  to  the  Pres* 
byterian  church. 

5.  We  do  not  agree  with  the  protcstants  in  the  opinion, 
that  the  resources  of  any  part  of  the  Presbyterian  church 
"cannot  be  called  into  action  in  the  missionary  cause  with- 
out the  establishment  of  a  Missionary  Board  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly."  The  history  of  missionary  operations 
in  this  and  other  countries,  furnishes  ample  evidence  that 
the  energy  and  zeal  of  Christians  in  tho  spread  of  the 
gospel  are  much  more  effectually  enlisted,  and  their  liber- 
ality greatly  increased  by  more  expanded  organizations, 
which  overstep  the  limits  of  sects,  and  the  bond  of  whose 
union  is  the  one  great  object  of  spreading  the  glorious  gos- 
pel of  the  blessed  God.  It  is  our  settled  belief,  that  the 
societies  formed  on  these  principles,  and  including  differ- 
ent denominations  of  Christians,  are  actually  perfoiming, 
as  the  proxies  of  the  church,  in  the  work  of  missions,  that 
which  the  church,  on  account  of  her  divisions,  can  per- 
form in  no  other  way  so  well.  They  appear  to  us  to  have 
embraced  the  harmonizing  principle,  which  is  destined  ul- 
timately to  re- unite  the  churches,  and  make  them  one,  as 
it  was  in  the  beginning,  and  will  be  in  the  end. 

G.  While  the  majority  of  the  Assembly  acknowledge 
their  unabated  confidence  in  the  American  Board  of  Com- 
missioners for  Foreign  Missions,  as  fully  meeting  our  wish- 
es, and  affording  a  safe  and  open  channel  through  which 
all  our  churches  may,  as  consistent  Presbyterians,  con- 
vey their  contributions  to  the  cause  of  Foreign  Missions, 
we  do  not  regard  ourselves  as  having  denied,  by  ihe  decis- 
ion protested  against,  to  the  minority  the  privilege  of  con- 
ducting their  Missionary  operations  with  entire  freedom, 
on  any  other  plan  which  they  may  prefer.  But  we  think 
it  unreasonable  for  them  to  ask  us  to  form,  and  to  com- 
plain of  our  not  forming,  by  a  vote  of  the  General  As- 
sembly, an  organization,  the  principles  of  which  we  do 
not  approve.  We  do  not  ask  of  them  to  assume  the  re- 
sponsibilities of  the  plan  which  we  prefer,  and  we  cannot 
regard  ourselves  as  chargeable  with  unkindness  or  injus- 
tice, in  having  refused  to  assume  the  responsibilities  of  the 


83 

plciti  which  they  prefer.  If  we  cannot  agree  to  unite  in 
the  same  organization,  for  the  same  purpose,  it  appears  to 
us  manifestly  proper,  that  each  party  should  bear  the  re- 
sponsibility of  its  own  chosen  plan  of  operations;  and  if 
our  brethren  cannot  so  far  commend  their  principles,  as 
io  extend  their  ecclesiastical  organizations  beyond  those 
^^fragments  of  the  church,''''  of  which  they  speak,  they  sure- 
ly ought  not  to  complain  of  us,  "if  those  in  every  part  of  , 
the  church,  who  wish  for  a  general  Presbyterian  Board," 
remain  dissatisfied.  We  would  respectfully  ask  whether 
they  ought  not  to  charge  their  embarrassment,  in  this 
respect,  to  the  plan  which  they  have  adopted,  rather  than 
to  those  who  have  chosen,  on  their  own  responsibility,  in 
the  fear  of  God,  to  conduct  their  missionary  operations  on 
other  principles.  If,  therefore,  the  minority  of  the  As? 
sembly  should  hereafter  juHge  themselves  under  "the  ne- 
cessity of  resorting  to  plans  of  ecclesiastical  organisation," 
which  shall  "interfere  with  ecclesiastical  harmony,"  the 
majority  cannot  regard  themselves  as  responsible  for  such 
results.  The  settled  belief  of  the  majority  of  the  Assem- 
bly is,  that  the  operations  of  the  American  Board  of 
Commissioners  for  Foreign  Missions,  with  its  numerous 
auxiliaries,  both  ecclesiastical  and  voluntary,  within  the 
bounds  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  present  the  best  ar? 
rangement  for  the  promotion  of  the  cause  of  Missions  by 
our  churches  ;  and  it  was  to  prevent  the  ecclesiastical  con? 
flicts  and  divisions  which  liave  resulted  from  the  opera- 
tions of  other  similar  organizations,  that  they  have  thought 
it  their  duty  to  decline  the  organization  proposed.  They 
liave  made  their  decision  for  the  purpose,  and  with  the 
hope  of  securing  and  promoting  the  union  in  the  mission? 
ary  work  which  has  so  happily  existed  in  former  years. 
AVith  these  vievvs  and  hopes  they  commend  the  cause 
of  Missions,  and  their  solemn  and  conscientious  decis« 
ion,  to  the  blessings  of  God,  and  pray  for  the  peace  of  Je- 
rusalem." 

From  the  foregoing,  it  will  be  seen,  that  the  majority 
of  the  General  Assembly  preferred  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  Mis- 
sions to  an  ecclesiastical  organization.  Contemplating  the 
success  of  that  noble  institution,  it  was  not  strange.  It 
even   commended  itself  to  the  respect  of  the    most  rigid 


84 

friends  of  ecclesiastical  Boards.  In  January,  1837,  the 
Hon.  Walter  Lowrie,  an  Old  School  man,  and  the  Corres- 
ponding Secretary  of  the  ^^^cst.  For.  Missionary  Society, 
sa'd  :  '"It  has  been  my  privilege,  wherever  1  have  been 
culled  to  speak,  to  state  our  feelings  toward  the  Am.  B.  C. 
Foreign  I\lissions.  For  eighteen  years  I  have  been  famil- 
iar With  the  operations  of  that  Board.  And  not  one  of 
their  missionaries  has  gone  to  the  heathen  world,  labored 
or  died  there,  whose  progress  1  have  not  marked  with  great 
interest,  and  followed  with  my  prayers.  I  have  always 
clierished  great  confidence  in  tbat  Board  ;  1  hope  God  will 
prosper  it  abundantly,  and  enlarge  its  operations,  until, 
with  the  aid  of  other  societies,  they  shall  fill  the  earth 
with  the  knowledge  of  God.  We  think  we  can  feel  thus, 
and  yet  prefer  another  organizntion."  See  Journal  and 
Luminary,  Feb.  IG,  1837. 

It  will  not,  however,  be  forgotten,  that  in  1833,  the  Mis- 
sionary question  was  the  bone  of  contention — the  great 
exciting  subject.  Because  the  majority  of  the  Assembly 
would  not  give  up  their  partiality  for  the  Am.  B.  C.  F. 
Missions,  and  have  the  Assembly,  and  through  that  body, 
the  church  committed  to  an  ecclesiastical  organization, 
there  was  great  complaint.  Or  because,  in  this  matter, 
the  majority  were  unwilling  to  be  controlled  by  the  minor- 
ity, there  was  universal  dissatisfaction  among  the  Old 
School.  The  Southern  Christian  Herald,  an  Old  School 
p:iper,  said  ;  "One  of  the  best  of  the  present  indications  is 
the  sensUiceness  manifested  at  the  Assembly's  decision  on 
the  Foreign  Missionary  question,  although  this  decision 
has  no  tendency  to  corrupt  the  church."  Their  '■^sensU 
iiveness'''  on  this  question  was  greater  thanabout  dodrinen. 

Tlie  Editor  of  the  Western  Presbyterian  Herald  of  Au- 
gust 11,  1836,  said  :  "Unless  we  separate  amicably,  the 
(lissentions  lohich  have  arisen  over  the  Home  Missionary 
Society  will  continue  to  increase  until  they  produce  a  vio- 
lent disruption."  "But  this  unhappy  contrariety  of  opin- 
ion is  not  confined  to  the  subject  of  Domestic  Missions. 
Whatever  opinions  are  held  on  the  subject  of  irresponsi- 
ble associations,  or  ecclesiastical  supervision  and  control, 
they  are  applicable  to  the  Foreign  as  well  as  the  Dome^? 
.lie  Missionary  work." 


According  this  j)a[)or,  tlierefore,  the  ^'dissensions"'  over 
tlio  missionary  work  were  the  causes  that  Izd  to  tlie  ''vio- 
lent disruption.''^ 

In  1836,  the  BibHcal  Repertory,  an  OM  School  Quar- 
terly, reviewing  the  action  of  the  Assembly  on  tlie  Mir,- 
siouarv  question  said:  ''Thus  ended  this  important  de- 
cision. We  fear  the  result  has  inflicted  a  deeper  wound 
on  the  prosperity  of  our  ciiurch  than  she  has  suifered  fo' 
a  long  time." 

The  Missionary  question,  then,  was  certainly,  accor- 
ding to  leading  Old  School  men,  the  great  matter  of  con- 
test between  the  parties.  And  had  the  majority,  in  1836, 
consented  to  let  the  Old  School  control  the  church,  it  is 
highly  probable,  that  the  "dissensions,''^  which  led  to  "a  vi- 
olent disrupiion^^  would  have  been  hushed. 


(8G) 


CHAPTER  XIIl. 


M'l.  BARNES'  CASE  AGAIN— SEC ilET  CIRCULAR. 


'I'he  case  of  Mr.  Barnes  came  up  again  in  the  Assem- 
bly of  1836-.  Tiie  year  before,  Dr.  Junkin  tabled  char- 
ges against  him  before  his  Presbytery.  They  were  as 
jb'lows,  viz.: 

•'1.  That  sin  consists  in  voluntary  action. 

",  Tiial  Adam  (before  and  after  the  fall)  was  ignorant 
of  his  moral  relations  to  such  a  degree,  that  he  did  not 
know  the  consequences  of  his  sin  would  or  should  reach 
uny  further  than  to  natural  death. 

3.  That  unregenerate  men  are  able  to  keep  the  com- 
mandments and  convert  themselves  to  God. 

4.  That  taiih  is  an  act  of  the  mind,  and  not  a  princi* 
pic,  and  in  itself  imputed  for  righteousness." 

He  was  charged  with  denying, 

■•'5.  That  God  entered  into  covenant  with  Adam,  con- 
stituting him  a  federal  or  covenant  head  and  representa- 
tive of  all  his  natural  descendants. 

o.  That  the  first  sin  cf  Adam  is  imputed  to  his  poste= 
lily. 

7.  That  mankind  are  guilty,  i.  e.,  liable  to  punishment 
on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam. 

8.  That  Christ  suffered  the  proper  penalty  of  the  law, 
as  ihe  vicarious  substitute  of  his  people,  and  thus  took 
av.ay  legally  their  pardon. 

9.  That  the  righteousness,  i.  e.,  the  active  obedience  of 
Christ  to  the  law  is  imputed  to  his  people  for  their  justifi- 
cation ;  so  that  they  are  righteous  in  the  eye  of  the  law, 
und  therefore  justified." 

Iv?.    Mr.    Barnes   also   teaches,    in    opposition    to  the 


87 


standards,  that  justification  is  simply  pardon."     fBiM-nes' 
Tris^,  page  105  and  onwards.] 

The  proofs  relied  on  by  Dr.  Junkin  were  all  ouottd 
from  Barnes' Notes  on  the  Romans,  a  work  everV  ono 
can  see  for  himself.  ^ 

The  Presbytery  decided,  that  the  charges  were  not  su^. 
lamed.  Dr.  Junkin  appealed  from  their  decision  to  tho 
teynod  of  Philadelphia,  which  met  at  York,  Pa.,  October, 

The  case  occupied  tho  attention  of  Synod  about  a 
week.  Mr.  Barnes  was  regarded  as  a  leading  man  a- 
mong  those  who  were  charged  with  holding  a  general 
atonement  &c.  It  was  pretty  well  understood,  that  if'hu 
went  overboard,  so  would  Drs.  Beecher,  Skinner,  Cox, 
Peters,  McAuley,  and  hosts  of  others.  It  was,  therefor.- 
a  case  that  excited  great  interest.  Besides,  Mr.  Barnes 
was  greatly  beloved  by  his  friends,  and  was  a  ministe,", 
whose  gent  emanly  deportm.  nt,  whose  piety  and  talen'^-j 
commanded  the  respect  even  of  the  Old  School.  DurioL' 
the  progress  of  the  trial,  Dr.  John  Breckinridcre  declared 
]  must  say  that  I  never  saw  a  more  calm,  self. possessed 
or  dignified  deportment  in  any  individual,  than  the  accu«.. 
ed  party  has  exhibited  before  us  this  night."     Trial   rao, 

il^l^l^fT'  °^  f '••,^""<^^'  -^^^^^i/'  it  appeared  that 
the  O.d  School  were  far  from  being  agreed  among  then,^ 
selves.     The   Princeton   Reviev.-er  of  the  Notes  on   th. 
Romans,  in  the  Biblical  Repertory,  did   not   regnrd   Mr 
Barnes  as  materially  wrong  on  7w>i<<«//ow.  cenefallv  c'ori- 
sidered  his  greatest  heresy.     The  Reviewer"   Inough  hos- 
tile to  Mr.  Barnes,   says:  ''IVotwithstanding   all    the  oh- 
jections    urged    against    this  doctrine,    and    the  oblocuv 
which  he  endeavors  to  fasten  upon  it,  Mr.  Barnes  Itadie^ 
It  to.ts  f.  I  extent      On   page  122  he   says:      ^Men   aro 
ndubitably  affected  by  the  sin  of  Adam,  e.  <..,   by  bein<.- 
born  with  a  corrupt  disposition,  with  loss  of  righteousness" 
and  subjection  to  pain  and  wo.'    Here  are  evils/' continue, 
the  Kev.evver,  "indescribably  great  and   dreadful,  wi.i., 
are  declared  to  come  on  all  men  prior  to  all  aaency  an<l 
concurrence  of  their  own,  for  a  sin  committed  some  thou- 
sands  of  years  before  their  birth,  and   bevonJ   their  ro-x. 


88 

trol.  Farther  than  this  who  would  wish  to  go  ?  Farther 
the  Scriptures,  the  Rcforniers,  our  own  Standards,  and 
the  great  body  of  old  orthodox  divines  do  not  go." 

Dr.  McDowell,  a  prominent  Old  School  man,  said,  dur- 
ing the  trial:  "I  can  vote  with  a  good  conscience,  -that  Mr. 
Barnes  is  guilty  of  holding  great  and  dangerous  errors, 
but  not  that  he  holds  fundamental  errors.  I  believe  that 
lie  holds  to  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity  as  fully  and 
firmly  as  any  man  in  this  house,  and  that  he  believes  this 
depravity  to  be  derived  from  our  connection  with  Adam. 
)  believe  that  ho  holds  that  there  is  no  salvation  for  a  sin- 
ner but  through  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  he  is  saved  solely 
on  the  ground  of  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  that  he  be- 
.'omes  interested  in  these  merits  exclusively  by  faith. 
And  I  believe  farther,  that  he  holds  to  the  absolute  neces- 
sity of  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  convert  and 
sanctify  the  soul.  I  have  long  known  that  he  differed 
from  me  in  his  mode  of  explaining  some  of  these  points, 
but  I  am  satisfied  that  on  the  great  and  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  our  religion,  he  preaches  in  this  way."  Trial. 
page  255. 

The  majority  of  the  Synod,  however,  voted  against  M?. 
Barnes,  adopting  the  following  resolutions  : 

*'l.  That  in  view  of  the  proof  presented  to  Synod,  and 
of  the  whole  case,  the  decision  ot  ihe  (Assembly's)  Sec- 
ond Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  in  the  case  of  the  charges 
of  said  George  Junkin  against  th.e  said  Albert  Barnes  be, 
and  the  same  is  hereby  revelled,  as  contrary  to  truth  and 
righteousness,  and  the  Appeal  declared  to  be  sustained. 

2.  That  some  of  the  errors  alleged  in  the  charges  to  be 
lield  by  the  said  Albert  Barnes,  are  fundamental  ;  and  all 
of  them  contrary  to  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian 
<'liurch  in  the  United  States,  and  that  they  do  contravene 
the  sj'stem  of  trutli  1  herein  tauglit,  and  set  forth  in  tl>e 
Word  of  God. 

3.  That  the  said  Albert  Barnes  be,  and  he  hereby  is 
suspended  from  the  exercise  of  all  the  functions  proper  to 
the  gospel  ministry,  until  he  shall  retract  the  errors  here- 
by condemned,  and  give  satisfactory  evidence  of  repent- 
ance." 

yr.  Barnes   appealed   from   this   decision, of  Synod  to 


m 


il    Ki       /fr;?^^'^^f.    ^'^"'  '^^  '^'^  ^^'-^^  before  the 
Assemb  y  of   lS3b      Dr.    Junkin,    tl^e   prosecutor,    wos 
heard  at  length      Mr.  Barnes  then  madi  his  "noble  de 
.      fence."     A  1  who  wanted  to  speak,/o.  or  against,  we.; 
heard       And  when  the  final  question   was  p"ut,  "Susla  n 

tls     pf  ""/'"-"'^'r'  "^  ^'"  ^"'•"^«^"  the  vote  s'oo.' 

thus     For  sustaining  the  appeal  134_Not  suslainin-.  00. 

I  he  tallowing  resolution  was  then  oiil^red  •  ° 

y Resolved,   That    the  decision    of  the- Synod   of  Phi^ 

aaelphia,  suspending  the  Rev.    Albert    Barnes  from  ali 

h^ii^^^^^rsST'"  ''  '''  ^°^'^^'  ^''-^'-^  ^^'  --^  i^  '^ 
When  the  vote  was  taken  on  this  resolution    tl>e-p  wm-.- 

^Ayes  145--Noes  77."  Thus  Mr.  Barnes  w"      o/iorl'; 

acquitte^d  and  restored  to  the  ministry   bv   tl,i3  lar"!   r  ^ 

jonty  of  the  General  Assemblv.  ^"^^  '^-I'gt^   r-i- 

Dr.  Miller    though    voting  for  the   restoration    of  Mr 

Barnes   offered  a  resolution,  the  substance  of  wTich   w'^  ■ 

ihatM  thcAssemhly^oiU  not  condemn  fl^^Llt:. 

^2  xZ^r  '     ^'''  ''''  ^^^^'^^  ^>^   -   voti  o> 

It  is  also  true,    that  among   those  who  voted   to   acquit 

Ml.   Barnes,    there    was  not  perfect  uniformity  of  sen 

uie  IS    and  that  they  approved    his  phraseolooy.      Other 

en  ned      Or   P  .   ^''^^^^"'^':;',e°n-eet,  would  also  be  coii: 
lemncd.     Di.  Peters  said,  "When  I  heard  of  the  sentenr 

hai?  ofTirP "T'      ''^'?}^^-'''  -^-  blowstruci      t"    : 
iialt  o    the  Presbyterian  Church.      I   shall  not  vr.f^  ^^ 

.^e    lum  on    the  ground  of  ioleraL^^XlT^^t 
be  a  member  in  our  connexion  "  ° 

Whether  or  not  Drs    Peters,  Skinner,  and  oihers  concur 
uith  Mr.   Barnes  in  all  b,s  views,  is  uncertain       V.Tu 
grta.n    that  the    Assembly  did   not  ei;!^::^  Mr.  1  " 

system  ^'^  ."^     '""^  ^'"^    ^^'^^''^   "'^^  ^"  f«'-  =^"7    Ws 
^nrothersl'lhersa;:"^""  '°  '^^    "''"^^^  ^^  ^^"^   ^^^^'^^i''^ 

do"n;t^in'V,l^{   ^^'7  ^<^^isi""  they  do  not  intend  to,  and 
^0   not,  in  fact,  make  themselves    responsible  for  ill 
phraseology  of  Mr     RTmf....  o^      "^  I'ous  o  c  lor  all  the 
&^  i>aines;  some  of  which   is  not  suf- 


.*icicntly  guarde'i  and  is  liable  to  be  misundrTstood ;  arrd 
Tv'iiich  we  doubt  not  Mr.  Barnes,  with  reference  to  his 
usefulness,  and  the  peace  of  the  church,  will  modify  so  as 
to  prevent,  as  far  as  may  be,  the  possibility  of  misconcep- 
tion. 

2.  ]\Iuch  less  do  the  Assembly  adopt  as  doctrines,  con- 
sistent with  our  standards,  and  to  be  tolerated  in  our 
church,  the  errors  alleged  by  the  prosecutor,  as  contained 
in  the  Book  on  the  Romans.  It  was  a  question  of  fact, 
whether  the  errors  allegf  d  are  contained  in  the  Book,  and 
by  the  laws  of  exposition,  in  the  conscientious  exercise 
of  their  own  rights  and  duties,  the  Assembly  have  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  Book  dees  not  teach  the  errors 
charged." 

The  failure  of  the  Old  Schoo',  in  tlie  Assembly  of 
1836,  in  carrying  out  their  measures,  was  signal.  They 
felt  it  deeply.  They  had  hoped,  by  the  condemnation  of 
Mr.  Barnes,  1o  awe  the  New  School  party,  and  thus  bring 
;hem  into  complete  subordination,  and  that  they  would  fij;d 
little  difficulty  afterwards  in  the  control  of  the  whole 
ehurch.  They  also  hoped  to  have  the  church  commiticd 
by  ecclesiastiaal  organization,  to  an  Assrmbly's  Board  of 
Foreign  Missions,  and  that  then  there  would  riot  be  much 
•iifficulty  in  calling  oS'  the  patronage  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  from  the  A.  H.  M.  Society,  the  Presbyterian' 
l-lducation  Society,  "the  American  Tract  Society,  the  A- 
jneriean  Sunday  School  Union  &c.,  when  funds  were 
needed  to  carry  forward  the  ecclesiastical  Boards  of  the 
church. 

it  was  evident,  before  the  close  of  the  Assembly,  that 
the  Old  School  did  not  intend  to  submit  to  the  General 
Assembly,  if  they  were  denied  the  control  of  the  church. 
Accordingly,  on  the  rising  of  the  Assembly,  they  had  a 
>iiceting  for  deliberation.  As  the  meeting  was  private, 
the  lohole  of  their  transactions  has  never  perhaps  come 
Iteforethe  public.  The  following  slat,  ments  in  reference 
to  that  meeting  were  made  soon  after :   vi2. 

"1.  It  was  requested  that  all  who  did  not  sympnthise 
with  them  should  retire — a  request  which  was  certai«iy 
jiroper,  and  against  which  no  one  could  take  exceptions. 

'i.  I'hat   the  subject  of  a   division   of  the  church  was 


01 

then  agitated,  but  that  this  was  regarded  as  premature  and 
unwise. 

3.  That  the  measure  of  a  new  Act  and  Testimony, 
and  another  Convention  to  be  publicly  called  to  meet  in 
Philadelphia,  in  1837,  just  before  the  meeting  of  the  As- 
sembly, was  proposed.  To  this  it  was  objected,  that  the 
trial  had  been  made;  that  these  public  measures  had  rous- 
ed the  other  party,  and  had  been  the  occasion  of  their 
own  defeat ;  and  that  some  less  public  mode  of  action 
would,  in  existing  circumstances,  best  subserve  their  pur- 
poses. 

4.  That  it  was  then  proposed  that  a  Committee  should 
be  appointed  to  correspond  secretly  with  their  friends,  to 
consult  them  on  the  proper  measures  to  be  pursued,  and  to 
suggest  that  a  Convention  should  assemble  in  Philadelphia- 
in  1837,  in  the  week  before  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly." 
See  Journal  and  Luminary,  Oct.  6,  1836. 

A  committee  of  ten  was  appointed  to  correspond,  and 
to  carry  out  the  measures  of  the  meeting.  71iis  com- 
miitee,  in  due  time,  sent  out  what  was  called  the  "Secret 
Circular"  to  all  who  were  believed  to  be  of  their  party, 
and  not  to  the  whole  church  or  all  her  ministers.  ■  By 
Ir^eptember  it  fell  into  wrong  hands,  and  found  its  way 
into  the  papers.  It  may  be  seen  in  the  Journal  and  Lu- 
minary, Sept.  29,  1836.  The  Circular  complained  great- 
ly of  the  Assembly — its  action  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes, 
the  Missionary  question,  &c.  It  then  closes  with  a  num- 
ber of  enquiries  such  as — "And  now,  Dear  Brother,  in 
view  of  the  whole  subject,  we  ask  you,  ivhat  ought  to  he 
done?" 

This  document  was  clothed  in  cautious  phraseology. 
It  seemed  desirous  of  information.  It  was  designed  to 
J'tel  the  pulse  of  the  parly,  at  the  same  time  inviting  crim- 
ination, and  intelligence  in  reference  to  those  who  belong- 
ed to  the  opposite  party.  It  looked  to  ulterior  measures, 
the  division  of  the  C4)urch.  The  committee,  in  their  let- 
ter, inquire  if  it  is  possible,  under  the  circumstances,  that 
the  parties  can  remain  together.  It  was  evidently  expect- 
ed that  all  who  were  addressed  would  answer  in  the  nega- 
tive. 

The  Secret  Circular -was  sent  out  in  Julv.  The  answers 


92 

given  encouraged  the  committee  to  take  strong  grounJ. 
In  September  they  issued  a  pamphlet  of  forty  pages — ''An 
address  to  Ministers  and  Elders  and  members  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church  in  the  United  States."  All  disguise  was 
thrown  off.  They  declared  that  the  church  must  be  di- 
vided. They  said:  "We  are  a  divided  church — as  really 
divided  as  though  we  were  called  by  different  names  and 
existed  under  different  organizations.  The  schism  has 
■  already  come." 

In  this  same  "Address,"  speaking  of  the  New  School 
party,  which  was  then  a  majority,  they  say,  "Whatever 
else  may  be  dark,  this  is  clear,  we" cannot  continue  in  the 
same  body.  We  are  not  agreed,  and  it  is  in  vain  to  at- 
tempt to  walk  together.  In  some  way  or  other,  therefore, 
these  men  (the  New  School)  must  le  separated  from  us.''' 
Address,  page  40. 

The  conduct  of  this  committee,  as  well  as  some  others> 
has  been  severely  censured  by  the  Constitutional  party. 
Dr.  Phillips,  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  and  one  other 
member  had  rather  recently  come  into  the  Presbyterian 
Church  from  the  Seceders,  or-  some  such  rigid  sect.  Dr. 
Junkin,  the  prosecutor  of  Mr.  Barnes,  and  Mr.  Engles,  the 
Editor  of  the  Presbyterian,  the  organ  of  the  Old  School 
party,  were  not  raised  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  but 
came  into  the  church  from  a  foreign  body.  It  was  deem- 
ed very  indecorous  for  them  to  complain  of  '■^foreign  in- 
fluence,'" and  of  the  Congregationalists  coming  into  tlie 
Presbyterian  church.  It  was  considered  very  officious  in 
them,  that  they  should,  among  their  first  acts,  endeavor  to 
excite  su?picions  and  whisperings,  and  really  demand  that 
one  half  of  the  church  should  be  turned  out — "irt  some 
2vay  or  other  separated  from  vs." 

Heavy  censure  also  fell  on  three  other  members  of  the 
committee — Rev.  Messrs.  Breckinridge,  McDowell  and 
I\IcFarland — one  a  Professor  in  the  Theological  Seminary 
at  Princeton,  another  Secretary  and  General  Agent  of  the 
Assembly's  Board  of  Missions,  and  the  third  Secretary 
and  General  Agent  of  the  Assembly's  Board  of  Educa- 
tion. It  was  urged  that  they  were  salaried  officers  of  the 
cJiurch  and  not  0?  a  parly  ;  that  the  Assembly,  when  it 
made  or  sanctioned  the  appointments,  did  it   without  any 


03 

oxpectrttion  that  they  would  engage  in  an  enterprise  to 
dismember  the  church.  It  was  stated,  that  these  tliree 
gentlemen  were  sustained  from  the  funds  of  the  church  at 
an  annual  expense  of  not  less  than  six  thousand  dollars, 
nnd  that  the  appropriation  was  not  made  to  enable  them 
to  revolutionize  the  body  that  employed  them. 
-  The  Old  School  party,  by  this  time,  had  assumed  a  sort 
of  politico  religious  organization.  They  advocated  and 
held  conventions.  They  sent  out  among  the  churches 
Addresses,  Circulars,  Speeches  and  extra  Newspapers  in 
great  (juantitics.  They  established  presses  at  different 
points,  many  of  which  could  not  be  sustained  hy  the 
merits  of  the  cause.  Individuals  have  given  as  high  as 
one  hundred  dollars  at  a  time,  and  individual  churches 
hujidreds'  of  dollars,  to  sustain  certain  papers  in  this 
work. 


(94) 


CHAPTER  XIY. 


POLICY    OF    THE    TWO    PARTIES    IN    REFERENCE   TO 
THE  DIVISION  OF  THi;  CHURCH. 

The  parties  differed  entirely  in  their  poh'cy  during  the 
interval  between  the  rising  of  the  Assembly  in  183(5  and 
the  meeting  in  1837.  The  Old  School  party  were  for  the 
division  of  the  church,  and  the  New  School  againat  it. 
This  part  of  the  history  of  the  church  ought  to  be  pre- 
served. A  few  btalementa  from  documentary  evidence 
will  suffice. 

In  1834,  the  Act  and  Testimony  men  were  only  a  part 
of  the  Old  School.  It  would  be  unfair  to  attribute  their 
designs  to  the  whole  party,  at  that  period.  These  men, 
however,  were  understood  by  their  own  party  to  be  aim- 
ing at  the  dismemberment  of  the  church.  The  Prince- 
ton Professors,  in  reviewing,  in  the  Biblical  Repertory,  the 
Act  and  Testimony,  say  :  "Division,  then,  is  tha  end  to 
which  this  enterprise  leads,  and  at  which,  we  doubt  not  it 
aims."  This,  however,  was  denied,  in  the  Presbyterian, 
by  one  of  the  signers.  But  th^  Reviewers  say  :  "We 
have,  heard  other  signers  of  this  Act  and  Testimony, 
however,  very  distinctly  avow  their  desire  to  effect  a  di- 
vision of  the  church." 

It  was  not,  however,  till  1836,  that  the  Old  School  party 
generally  could  be  brought  up  to  devisive  measures.  The 
party's  committee,  in  their  "Address,"  came  out  very 
boldly.  They  said:  "Whatever  else  may  be  dark,  this 
33  clear,  we  cannot  continue  in  the  same  body.  We  are 
not  agreed,  and  it  is  in  vain  to  attempt  to  walk  together. 
In  some  way  or  other,  therefore,  these  men  must  he  separa- 
ted from  j/5."     Page  40. 


95 

This  was  the  policy  advocated  by  the  Editors  of  the  re- 
ligious papers,  under  the  control  of  the  Old  School. 

Tlic  Editor  of  the  Western  Presbyterian  Herald,  (16tii 
June,  183G,)  writing  from  Pittsburgh,  says:  "But  a  little 
\vhile  ago,  we  would  have  heard  of  division  almost  with 
horror:  now  it  is  the  subject  of  common  conversation  in 
almost  every  circle." 

This  Editor,  week  after  week,  came  out  manfully  in 
favor  of  division.  He  says  :  "We  are  of  opinion  that,  iu 
the  actual  state  of  the  case,  formal  division  is  not  only  in- 
evitable, but  is  desirable."  "We  set  out  to  illustrate  the 
necessity,  and  under  the  present  painful  but  unavoidable 
circumstances,  the  desirableness  of  the  ultimate  division 
of  our  church  by  this  simple  idea,  that  we  constitute  al- 
ready two  distinct,  widely  separated,  and  nearly  equal 
parties."     W.  P.  Herald,  July  21,  183G. 

"The  practical  question,  how  shall  we  divide,  is  certain- 
ly one  of  great  difficulty.  We  suppose  that  this  is  the 
reason  why  the  division  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  has 
not  occurred  before  this  time."  "This  much  is  clear,  that 
nothing  should  be  done  hastily,  violently,  in  bad  temper, 
or  without  ample  conference  among  all  concerned."  "We 
cannot  relinquish  the  hope,  that  when  the  subject  shall 
have  been  fully  considered,  the  necessity  of  separation 
will  be  seen  to  be  so  imperious,  and  its  propriety  will  be 
so  obvious,  that  the  great  body  of  the  church  will  concur 
in  some  mode  of  amicable  division."  "We  trust  that 
none  will  secede;  let  us  all  do  what  we  can  to  rouse  the 
church."     W.  P.  Herald,  August  18ih,  1836. 

In  the  same  number,  after  hoping  that  the  next  As? 
sembly  would  give  to  the  Old  School  their  desired  prepon- 
derance, he  says:  "But  if  this  be  not  so,  perhaps  some 
peaceable  mode  of  separation  may  be  adopted.  Let  ug 
wait  patiently  and  prayerfully  to  see.  Should  not  even 
this  be  done,  but  the  next  Assembly  have  a  decided  ma- 
jority of  the  New  School,  ready  to  pursue  the  policy  and 
adhere  to  the  principles  of  the  last  Assembly,  then  we 
may  conclude,  that  the  time  for  separation  has,  beyond  a 
jdoubt,  arrived,  and  separate  organizations  of  Synods,  or 
violent  disruption  of  the  body,  by  the  orthodox  planting 
themselves  upon  the  constitution,  declaring  themselves  the 


churcli,  and  excommunicating  the  errorisls,  will  probacy 
ensue.'' 

In  the  full  of  1836,  the  Old  School  party  began  to  hope, 
from  the  action  of  the  Presbyteries  and  Synods,  that,  iu 
the  next  Assembly,  they  would  have  a  majority.  After 
this,  the  Editors  of  their  papers  said  but  little  about  an 
^'■amicahle  division."  They  seemed  to  anticipate  a  ma- 
jority— strength  enough  to  make  a  division  that  would  suit 
themselves.  "The  Editor  of  the  VV.  P.  Herald,  (3d  Nov. 
1S36,)  speaking  as  though  division  were  certain,  says  :' 
"As  to  which  way  the  work  will  go,  surely  when  in- 
truders (meaning  the  New  School)  have  disturbed  our  house, 
and  will  neither  come  to  order,  nor  quietly  leave  us,  upon 
mutual  agreement,  ji-e  will  put  them  out  as  soon  as  we  are 
stro7ig  enough  ;  and  the  signs  of  the  times  are  beginning 
to  intimate,  that  this  may  be  sooner  than  any  of  us  ex- 
pected a  little  while  ago." 

Again  he  says  :  "Should  there  be  such  a  strength  of 
orthodox  men  in  the  next  Assembly  as  to  prove  the  sound- 
ness of  the  great  majority  of  the  church,  we  take  it  for 
granted  that  the  body  will  commence,  in  good  earnest,  a 
system  of  reform  that  will  soon  clear  our  church  of  those 
who  have  no  right  to  a  place  in  it.  Should  there  be  a 
majority  of  those  who  favor  error  in  the  next  Assembly, 
and  thus  the  majority  appear  against  the  orthodox  once 
more,  we  see  not  what  hope  of  reform  will  remain  ;  and 
in  some  form  or  other  the  alternative  of  division  must  be 
taken."     W.  P.  Herald,  December  29,  1836. 

It  will  be  seen  here  ''which  v/ay  the  work  was  to  go." 
Tlie  church  was  to  be  cleared  of  those  who  had  "no  right 
to  a  place  in  it."  Drs.  Phillips,  Junkin,  Engles,  &c.  only 
a  few  years  before  coming  into  the  Presbyterian  church 
from  foreign  bodies,  Seceders,  &c.  are  to  drive  out  "  i/j- 
ii'udei's'" — scores  and  hundreds  of  minietsrs  and  people 
who  were  born  and  educa-ted  in  the  Presbyterian  church  ! 

It  will  be  seen,  when  quotations  are  made  from  Old 
School  papers,  with  what  complacency  they  appropriate 
to  themselves  the  terms — "  the  orthodox'^ — "  We,  the  ortho- 
dox." But  it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  other  party 
did  not  allow  them  an  exclusive  right  to  this  modest 
.claiixi.     Tney  contended  that,  according  to  the  Book  of 


07 

God,  and  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  itie  decisions  of 
tiie  Assembly,  they  too  were  "///e  orthodox.''^ 

It  will  also  be  seen  why  the  Old  School  are  often  called 
"Reformers."  They  often  speak  of  "  Reform,"  and  call 
their  measures  "reform  arts."  They  were  sensible,  how- 
ever, of  the  incongruity  of  the  names  "0/rf  ScJiooV  and 
^'Eefo7'me7's,''  and  have  not  generally  relished  the  latter. 

But  we  return  to  our  extracts,  "its  (the  Convention's) 
motto  will  no  doubt  be,  Reform  if  possible — divisinn  onhj 
as  an  alternative.  And  that  division,  if  necessary,  such 
doubtless  as  to  show  that  the  orthodox  are  the  true  Pres- 
byterian party,  and  those  whom  thev  may  leave  or  expel. 
only  so  in  name."      W.  P.  Herald,  Feb.  2,  1837. 

The  same  policy  was  advocated  b}'  the  Editor  of  the 
Southern  Christian  Herald,  an  Old  School  paper.  In  1836^ 
he  says :  "That  the  controversy  is  more  painful  to  the 
orthodox  than  to  their  opponents,  who  exclaim  against  it 
so  incessantly  and  so  loudly,  is  proved  by  the  fact,  that 
they  (the  Old  School)  are  so  anxious  for  a  separation,  as 
well  to  get  rid  of  it, as  to  testify  to  the  truth,  while  their  most 
active  opponents  revile  them  more  for  a  movement  with 
this  view,  than  they  do  for  a  continuance  of  the  contro- 
versy itself." 

In  1836,  after  the  Convention  of  1837  had  been  deter- 
mined on,  the  Presbyterian,  the  organ  of  the  Old  School 
party,  advocated  division.  A  correspondent  of  that  pa- 
per, in  speaking  of  the  object  of  the  Convention,  said  : 
"Let  it  be  distinctly  understood,  that  the  precise  object  for 
which  it  is  called,  is  to  effect  a  division  of  the  Church,  f>i;d 
to  deliberate  on  the  manner  of  accomplishing  this  grer.t 
and  noble  work." 

Not  only  did  the  Editors  of  their  papers  advocate  di- 
vision, but  the  same  policy  was  advocated  in  their  Con- 
ventions. In  1836,  a  writer  in  the  Presbyterian,  said  ti 
be  Mr.  Musgrave,  of  Baltimore,  a  member  of  the  Assem- 
bly of  that  year,  and  of  the  secret  meeting  at  the  close 
of  the  Assembly,  said,  in  reference  to  that  meeting  :  "The 
(question  was  anxiously  and  solemnly  discussed,  in  the 
meetings  of  the  party^  W'Vja^  is  to  he  donel  Many  re- 
plied, 'let  us  immediately  separate.'  Others  said,  'let  us 
call  it  Convention,  for  the  purpcse  of  more  general  con- 
jsultatiun  and  united  action.'  If  the  first  named  proposi- 
9 


OS 

lion  l:ad  been  put  1o  vote,  1  have  good  reason  for  believ'ng. 
Jhut  two  thirds  would  have  answe-rcd,  Met  us  separate.'-" 

In  the  Old  School  Convention  of  1837,  Dr.  Junkin,  who 
ought  to  know,  said ;  ''That  convention  never  woald  have 
been  called,  but  for  the  purpose  of  separating  the  Pelagians 
(the  Dr's  name  for  the  New  School)  from  the  sound  part 
cf  tiie  church." 

Tlie  Assembly  of  1837,  after  the  excision,  in  their  Pas- 
toral Letter,  say  :  "Discerning  men  have  perceived,  for  a 
number  of  years,  that  the  alfliirs  of  our  beloved  church 
ivere  hastening  to  a  crisis,  and  when  the  members  of  the 
present  Assembly  canie  together,  the  state  of  the  parties 
^vas  such,  as  to  niake  it  manifest  that  a  division  of  the 
ch.urch  was  the  most  desirable  object  that  could  be  ef- 
fected." 

The  Old  School,  or  rather  the  New  Basis  Assembly  of 
183S,  after  the  schism  had  occurred,  in  their  Pastoral  Let- 
ter, say  :  -'The  last  General  Assembly  acted  under  the 
conviction,  that  the  only  possible  way  to  secure  peace  was 
bv  the  sepTration  of  the  parties  in  our  church."  They 
Bay  certain  measures  were  adopted  "to  effect  this  separa- 
tion." And  for  themselves  they  say,  "ihat  they  rejoice 
that  this  separation  is  thus  far  effected." 

The  policy  of  the  New  School  was  very  different.  Dii? 
ring  this  protracted  controversy,  the  Editors  of  the  Old 
{School  papers  were  in  the  habit  of  sneering  at  the  South- 
ein  Tlcligious  Telegraph,  Cincinnati  Journal,  and  other 
New  School  papers,  because  they  opposed  the  division  of 
ihc  church,  and  urged  that  the  parties  should  let  their  mod- 
eration be  known  of  all  mon. 

A  writer  in  the  VV.  P.  Herald,  July  7,  1836,  calls  the 
Southern  Religious  Telegraph  "a  professedly  neutral  pa- 
;cr."  He  says  of  the  Editor  :  "He  has  labored  assidu- 
ously to  persuade  the  churches  that  they  were  warring  a- 
bout  words." 

A  writer  in  the  W.  P.  Herald,  July  28,  1636,  says  : 
"New  School  men,  from  the  beginning,  declared  that  there 
was  no  material  dilTerencc  between  them  and  the  standards 
of  the  church  and  their  Old  School  brethren." 

Dr.  Wilson,  says  :  "Among  those  who  have  shut  out 
the  light  from  the  people,  by  professed  neutrality,  and  the 
rant  of  no  difference,  1  consider  the  Editors  jof  the  Souther  ij 


99 

Eeligious  Telegraph  and  Cincinnati  Journal,  ns  most  co-it'* 
spicuoLis."  W.  P.  Herakl,  July  10,  IS37.  Dr.  Wilso.i, 
it  will  be  admitttd  on  all  hands,  is  a  good  witness.  Well, 
liere  he  represents  the  opponents  of  his  partv  as  opposed 
to  controversy  and  division,  crying  '■^nerulalily"  and  "/.o 
dij'ersuce.'" 

A  corre.spendent  of  the  W.  P.  tierald,  July  26,  1S38, 
represents  the  whole  Anti-reform  party  as  opposed  \o 
measures  tending  to  division.  He  says  :  ''The  time  has 
not  yet  passed  the  recollection  of  many,  when  these  two 
brethren — [Editors  of  the  Journal  and  'J'elegraph] — i/i 
common  ivilh  the  New  School  J  rater  nily,  locked  up  in  tho 
most  profound  neutrality,  were  excessively  bitter  in  their 
opposition  to  all  controversy  and  strife,  recommending  to 
their  dissatisfied  brethren   earnest  prayer,"  &c. 

In  1836,  some  valuable  numbers  appeared  in  the  Phila- 
delphia Observer,  a  New  School  paper,  over  the  signature 
of  "An  enemy  to  Schism,"  whilst  the  Philadelphia  Pres- 
byterian, an  Old  School  paper,  was  taking  the  ground  that 
schism  was  no  sin. 

About  the  beginning  of  the  year  1837,  Rev.  Mr.  White, 
of  South  Carolina,  a  Constitutional  Presbyterian,  in  a  se- 
ries of  published  letters,  remonstrated  against  all  divisive 
measures.  His  arguments  were  such  as  were  generally 
urged  by  Ihe  Anti-reform  party,  stigmatized  as  Nev/ 
School.  He  said  the  result  would  be — Disaffection,  hear:* 
burnings  and  personal  ill-will  among  christians. — Separa- 
tion of  families  and  churches  in  their  places  of  worship — 
Dissolution  of  the  pastoral  relation — Destruction  of  minis- 
terial intercourse  and  usefulness,  &:c. 

In  justice  to  many  of  the  Old  School  party,  it  ought  to 
be  stated,  that  they  were  opposed  to  division.  Of  tii-s 
number  in  1833  was  Dr.  Miller.  In  his  Letters  to  Pres- 
byterians, he  says  :  "Our  body  would  be  sundered  into  at 
least  four  or  five  parties.  Synods  would  be  divided  in:o 
several  parts.  Presbyteries  would  be  rent  in  pieces.  Con- 
gregations would  be  found,  in  a  multitude  of  cases,  to  be 
made  up  of  members  of  diiferent  sentiments,  and,  of  course, 
be  severed  into  two  or  three  sections,  neither  of  which 
would  be  able  to  sustain  the  regular  ministration  of  tiie 
gos[)el.  Cojitroversies  also  without  end,  respecting  church 
property,  would  probably  be  engendered  ;,  unhallowed  pas,- 


100 

sions  would  be  excited,  friends  would  be  separated,  fami- 
lies painfully  divided,  the  Saviour  would  be  crucified  afresh, 
and  put  to  an  open  shame  among  his  professed  disciples  ; 
r.nd  Zion  would  be  bleeding  and  dishonored  in  the  sight  of 
an  unbolieving  world  : — and  nil  this  for  what?  Only  to 
remain  apart  for  u  little  while,  to  make  work  for  bitter 
repentance."  And  again  said  the  Dr. :  "My  voice  is  not 
for  division^  hut  for  peace  and  continued  union.^' 

But  the  peace  party  among  the  leading  Reformers  was 
small.  And  their  remonstrances  were  as  unavailing  as 
those  of  the  Anti-reform  pnrty,  in  arresting  the  torrent  of 
innovation  and  revolution  that  was  gathering  over  the 
rluirch. 

Thus  stood  the  two  parties  in  1836,  when  the  New 
School  were  in  the  majority.  Thus  they  stood  during  thai 
year,  and  till  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly  of  1837. 


% 


(  loi  } 


CHAPTER  XV. 


OLD  SCHOOL  C0^"VENT10N  OF  1= 


This  Convention,  called  by  the'Commitiea  of  the  Olfl 
fe'chool  party  in  the  Assembly  in  183G,  met  in  Philadel- 
phia about  a  week  before  the  n.-eting  of  the  General  As- 
sembly. There  were  more  than  one  hundred  members 
in  attendance. 

Tbj  first  measure  proposed  in  the  Convention  was,  somtj 
action  in  reference  to  "certain  judicatories"  charged  by 
common  fame  with  heresies  anil  disorders.  The  Conven- 
tion went  into  a  sort  of  ex  parte  trial  of  certain  bodies. 
Common  fame  was  the  principal  witness.  The  members 
were  invited  to  retail  such  reports  as  had  reached  th^m. 
Various  rumors  were  communicated.  And  though  the 
parties  accused  were  not  represented,  and  could  make  no 
defence,  yet  they  were  soon  condemned,- 

The  Conveni'on,  however,  were  not  agreed  as  to  the 
plan  .  which  they  should  proposro  for  the  Assembly's  adop- 
tion. Dr.  Blythe  suggested  the  plan  of  citation,  with  a 
view  to  excision.  He  thought  the  course  pursued  by  the 
Synod  of  Kentucky,  in  the  case  of  the  Cumberland  Pres- 
byterians, the  proper  one.  Me  said  :  "Thirty-three  or 
four  years  ago,  the  Synod  of  Kentucky  knew  it  to  be 
difficult  to  try  any  man  for  hSresy  ;•  but  they  appointed  a 
Commission  to  visit  the  parts  where  the  heresy  was  report- 
ed to  exist,  to  inquire  and  report.  The  suspected  Pres- 
byteries were  not  allovved  to  sit  in  Synod  till  the  affair 
was  settled.     The  Synod  acted,  cut  off  the  unsou-ndy  arwli 


102 

restored  peace  to  the  orthodox.  Why  rnay  not  the  next 
General  Aasembly  do  the  same  thing?''  "If  this  course 
be  taken,  you  exclude  from  your  judicatories  those  who 
are  charged  with  unsoundness  until  the  affair  is  is^ued  ; 
and  you  gain  two  things — first,  you  put  out  those  who 
trouble  you  ;  and  secoi:d,  you  will  be  prepared  to  admin- 
ister wholeson^e  admonition  to  the  suspected.  This 
course  will  show  that  you  are  cautious  of  the  character  of 
your  brethren.  You  will  not  impeach  them  till  inquiry  is 
juade  in'an  orderly  manner.  But  if  something  of  this 
sort  is  not  done,  what  will  the  world  say  1"  See  Wes- 
tern Presbyterian  Herald,  June  1,  1837. 

Dr.  Junkin  offered  a  resolution:  "That  the  orthodcs 
would  agree  not  to  go  into  the  Assembly,  unless  the  Syn- 
od of  the  VVeslern  Reserve  were  excluded."  "There  is 
common  fame  enough  to  cut  off  the  Synod  at  the  outset." 
Herald,  June  1,  1837. 

Mr.  R.  J.  Breckinridge  said:  "All  that  is  proposed,  re- 
i'ers  to  what  the  Assembly  ought  to  do.  We  must  go  to 
the  i^ssernbly.  We  can  do  nothing  here,  lam  just 
where  1  used  to  be.  I  am  opposed  to  violent  action.  Let 
us  do  nothing  which  cannot  be  fully  justified.  It  is  vain 
to  hope  that  jou  can  exclude  the  persons  against  whom 
these  speeches  and  niemorials  are  aimed.  There  is  no 
])0\ver  any  where  that  can  do  it."  Herald,  June  1, 
1837. 

Dr.  Baxter  said  :  "In  our  general  views  we  are  unani- 
mous, that  the  purity  of  the  church  is  endangered,  and 
that  something  must  be  done.  But  we  differ  as  to  the 
mode  of  relief."  "As  to  some  suggestions  of  Dr.  Junkin, 
1  cannot  support  them.  We  have  no  constitutional  au- 
thority here.  We  meet  merely  to  consult,  in  the  exercise 
cf  a  proper  right,  and  to  present  our  views  to  the  General 
Assembly..  But  if  we  take  ihe  ground  that  we  are  a  part 
of  the  judicatories  of  the  church,  and  proceed  to  excom- 
municate our  brethren,  we  assume  high  judicial  powers 
and  array  public  opinion  against  ua."  "if  high  handed 
and  apparently  unconstitutional  measures  are  taken,  it 
v/ill  greatly  injure  us.  There  is  great  distrust  as  to  the 
designs  of  the  ortiiodox :  it  is  supposed  that  the  friends  of 
the  constitulion  propose  to  alter  the  constitution.     And  if 


r 


103 

the  Convention  resolved  to  sot  aside  Synods,  and  exconni- 
municate  them,  it  will  injure  us  by  confirming  these  fears." 
Herald,  Jane  1,  1837. 

Mr.  Breckinridge  said  :  "The  decision  on  the  Foreign 
Missionary  question  of  the  last  Assembly  was  an  outrage  ; 
but  preceding  Assemblies  had  already  implied  the  same 
decision  to  refuse  a  Presbyterian  organization.  All  the 
great  principles  that  are  developed  in  our  system  were 
intrenched  on  years  ago  as  fully  as  now."  "Let  it  be 
recollected  too,  tliat  to  get  apart  from  the  unsound,  is  not 
the  only  thing  to  be  done.  It  must  not  be  done  on  the 
principles  which  may  destroy  ourselves."  "I  have  asked 
a  hundred  brethren,  'what  is  your  view  of  getting  apart  T 
Yet  r.ot  one  has  given  me  a  clear,  distinct,  detailed 
statement  which  he  was  willing  to  adopt."  Herald,  June 
1,  1837. 

Mr.  Musgrave  said  :  "I  wonder  that  there  is  any  call 
for  facts.  If  any  man  is  in  darkness,  let  him  read 
Barnes'  Notes  and  the  Christian  Spectator,  and  read  the 
doctrines  which  are  recorded  ihere.  Let  him  also  turn  to 
the  Voluntary  Associations;  I  call  them  not  benevolent, 
but  party  engines."  "But  we  forget  the  machinery  that 
is  at  work  against  us,  manufacturing  and  sending  out 
ministers  so  rapidly,  that  if  we  simply  wait,  discuss  and 
do  not  act,  in  twelve  months  our  case  will  be  entirely  hope- 
less. Some  of  our  brethren  nre  already  clear  that  the 
present  state  of  things  is  no  longer  tolerable.  They  will 
have  a  reform  or  separation."  "What  then  is  to  be  done 
with  such  men,  who  are  false  and  deceivers?  We  can- 
not live  with  them — we  can  have  ro  peace  with  them — 
they  are  in  opposition  to  our  principles  and  policy  and  to 
moral  honesty.  That  we  must  get  apart  is  clear.  Mr.  Breck- 
inridge says  we  must  not  take  a  step  in  the  dark.  But 
can  we  not  legislate  conditionally,  and  take  the  first  step 
that  is  clear  ■?  Is  not  the  course  plain  ?  If  we  have  the 
power,  as  1  hope  we  shall  have— although  I  am  not  very 
sanguine — is  it  not  clear  that  men  who  teach  doctrines 
confessedly  at  variance  with  our  standards  must  be  cut  off, 
and  the  institutions  which  divide  and  ruin  us  must  be  de- 
stroyed ?  This  is  clear.  Let  us  then  determine  that 
those   bodies    which  are  corrupt  shall    be  arraigned   and 


104 

trieti.  My  plan  would  be  lo  cite  them,  bring  them  to  yoiir 
bar,  get  a  Committee  tc  present  the  facts  to  the  next  A*- 
sembly,  antl  you  exclude  ihem  from  all  power  till  the  issue 
is- settled.''  "But  suppose  we  have  not  a  majority  in  the 
Fisxt  General  Assembly.  There  are  two  propositions' 
which  may  be  made.  1.  We  may  propose  an  amrcablo 
division'.  Let  us  try  our  brethren  who  say  they  love  peace 
and  ate  tired  of  war,  and  that  it  is  destructive  of  rc' 
vivals — except  about  two  months  before  the  meeting  of 
the  General  Assembly.  Well,  we  say  so  too.  We  are 
sick  and  weary  of  their  falseness  and  their  assaults,  wo 
want  restr  2.  But  suppose  we  cmaot  divide  amicably. 
Although  we  cannot  see  at  first  what  to  do,  we  must  look 
Ptbout  (or  light.  I  come  to  ask  you,  and  God  the  Father 
of  lights:  let  us  look  to  Him  in  prayer.  L',;t  us  settle  this, 
that  if  the  New  Scliool  have  the  majority  in  the  next  As- 
sembl}',  we  are  a  dead  minority — not  an  accidental  niinori- 
ry,  but  we  never  shall  be  a  majority.  If  the  last  Assem- 
bly and  other  Assemblies  have  not  brought  up  the  church- 
to  secure  a  majority,  all  hope  is  gone.  Your  opponents 
multiply  like  frogs.  I'hey  educate,  license,  and  settle 
men  faster  than  you  can  do.  But  if  the  next  Assembly 
be  Old  School,  what  shall  we  do?  If  reform  be  impossi- 
ble, the  imperative  alternative  is  separation."  "Let  us 
cling  together  and  strive  for  victory,  or  fall  in  the  effort." 
Herald,  June  1,  1837. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  debates  in  the  Convention,  that 
the  members  aimed  at  one  of  two  things:  reform  or 
separation.  And  from  the  debates  it  will  be  seen  what 
was  meant  by  reform.  It  was  to  secure  to  the  Old  School 
a  majority,  and  effectually  to  put  the  New  School  in  the 
minority.  Mr.  Musgrave  says  r  "If  the  last  Assembly 
and  other  Assemblies  have  not  brougl.t  up  the  church  to 
secure  a  majnrityy  all  hope  is  gone."  The  reader  of  this 
portion  of  the  history  of  the  church  cannot  fail  to  see  that 
a  permanent  majority  for  the  Old  School  was,  with  one 
portion  of  the  Convention,  the  leadin^j  object  in  this  busi- 
ness of  ^'reform.^^  "Let  us  settle  this..goint,  that  if  the 
New  School  have  the  majority  in  the  next  Assembly,  wo 
are  a  dead  minority — not  an  accidental  minority,  but  ice 
mcer  shall  he  a  major Uy.^^     Whether  such  measures,  oa 


105 

tlie  part  of  a  minority,  to  gain  the  ascendency,  is  not  a 
reform  that  needs  to  be  reformed,  is  a  question  to  be  de- 
cided by  the  impartial  reader. 

Whilst  some  would  have  been  satisfied  with  a  perma^ 
ncnt  majority,  others  would  not  have  been  content  with 
any  thing  short  of  a  division  of  the  church.  Mr.  Breck- 
inridge was  clear  that  the  church  ought  "to  get  apart." 
Dr.  Junkin  urged  that  :  "That  Convention  never  would 
have  been  called,  but  for  the  purpose  of  separating  the 
Pelagians  (the  Dr's  name  for  New  School)  from  the  sound 
part  of  the  church." 

But  this  policy  was  not  urged  by  all.  "Dr.  Blythe 
spoke  at  some  length  in  opposition  to  measures  of  separa- 
tion. He  wanted  to  contend- — was  opposed  to  cutting  ofF 
any  Synod^lill  tried."     Herald,  June  1,  1837. 

Dr.  Junkin  said  :  "We  ought  to  have  some  plan.  We 
must  not  count  on  a  majority;  let  us  have  some  settled 
principles.  Do  not  trust  a  New  School  majority  to  arraign 
and  cut  off  New  School  men,  and  New  School  Presby- 
teries. If  we  have  a  majority  we  can  do  what  we  please  ; 
and  we  know  what  we  shall  do."  "We  must  be  prepared 
for  amputation,  difficult  and  painfulas  it  is.^" 

The  Convention  found  it  difficult  to  agree  upon  a  plan 
for  action,  provided  they  should  be  a  minority  in  the  As- 
sembly. Dr.  Junkin  urged  the  Convention  in  such  a  case, 
"at  once  to  bring  in  its  ultimatum  and  say — we  are  deter- 
mined as  one  man,,  that  unless  this  reform  is  immediately 
t'fiected,  ice  will  cut  you  off.  We  are  the  Presbyterian 
church;  you  are  not,  but  are  undermining  its  founda- 
tions." 

Dfv  Blythe's  plan  savored  a  little  more  of  modesty.  Ha 
hoped,  "that  if  the  orthodox  were  in  a  minority  in  the 
Assembly,  they  would  rise  in  a  body,  leave  the  house  and 
go  on  with  the  business  of  the  church.-" 

Mr.  Breckinridge  seemed  not  to  be  pleased  with  any  oneV 
plan  but  his  own,  if  plan  he  had.  He  said  :  "We  need  not 
detail  plans  for  the  General  Assembly  ;  1  will  not  agree 
to  make  the  Moderator  the  Dictator  of  the  General  As- 
sembly. I  will  go  as  far  as  any  one  for  sound  Presbyte- 
rian doctrine  and  order.     But  not  for  measures  unconsli- 


,^ 


lOG 

futioiial,  such  as  the  exclusion  of  any  body  regularly  coin- 
missioned  to  the  General  Assembly." 

After  five  or  six  days  had  been  spent  by  the  Conven- 
tion in  a  wide  range  of  discussion,  Dr.  Wilson  from  the 
business  committee,  "presented  a  resolution,  declaring 
that  in  case  the  Assembly  shall  not  take  measures  for  re- 
form, this  Co-nventionwill  proceed  to  ulterior  and  decisive 
measures.'^ 

Dr.  Junkin  suggested  "that  the  resolution  was  too  un- 
defined. It  does  not  state  what  measures  we  shall  take^ 
nor  when." 

Mr.  Musgrave  said  :  "We  are  not  yet  prepared  to  say 
what  measures  we  will  adopt.  We  must  wait  till  we 
see  the  action  of  the  General  Assembly.  If  we  proceed 
now  to  say  what  that  action  ought  to  be,  we  shall  be  great- 
ly divided  in  opinion,  and  cannot  agree  in  any  thing  to  be 
determined  upon.  It  will  moreover  be  very  injudicious  in 
us  to  present  a  request  to  the  Assembly  for  important  re- 
forms, and  dictate  to  them,  by  threats,  what  they  shall 
do." 

Dr.  Junkin  thought  that  "defi.nite,  decided  action  was 
the  thing  now  to  be  resolved  on.  He  moved  to  amend,  by 
appending  to  the  resolution  the  words,  "for  separating  the 
Pelagians  and  anti-Presbytcrian  party  from  the  Pres- 
byterian church^" 

"Dr.  Wilson  objected  to  the  word  '■'■Felagian''*  in  the 
amendment.  In  all  the  charges  for  false  doctrine  which 
he  had  framed,  he  had  never  accused  any  nnan  of  Pela- 
gianism.  There  is  a  great  deal  of  Semi-Pelagianism  and 
Armenianism  in  the  church;  but  if  there  be  Pelagianism 
I  do  not  know  it.  If  the  amendment  be  adopted,  i  shall 
insist  on  determining  the  modus  ojjerandi  of  the  separa- 
tion. This  is  the  last  Convention  I  shall  ever  attend  if  I 
live  to  fourscore^  But  I  mean  to  know  before  1  leave  this 
Convention  what  the  Old  School  are  to  do." 

Mr.  Brown  said  :  "I  will  not  consent  to  menace  the 
Gcnei-al  Assembly.  It  is  utterly  out  of  place  for  us  to  de- 
cide for  the  Assembly  and  dictate  to  them." 

Dr.  Baxter  said  :  "I  am  not  prepared  for  revolutionary 
measures.  To  attempt  such  would  be  usurpation  in  us. 
Even  if  we  proclaim  division,  and    the  church  sustains  ua, 


107 

and  a  new  General  Assembly  is  form3d  o;it  of  the  ortho- 
dox portion  of  the  church,  still  the  whole  affair  has  a  most 
irregular  oriijin." 

Jn  the  discussions  of  the  general  questions  of  Reform 
or  Separaiion,  a  multiplicity  of  suljjects  was  introduced — 
the  heresies  and  disorrlers  of  certain  bodies,  plans  of  union, 
Congregationalism,  liopkinsianism,  New  Havenism,  Abo- 
lition, Slavery,  Voluntary  Societies,  &:c. 

The  debate  on  a  resolution  to  discountenance  the  Home 
Missionary  and  Education  Societies  showed  the  feeling  of 
the  Convention  in  reference  toother  voluntary  societies. 

Mr.  Breckinridge  moved  to  amend  by  adding  "that  oth- 
Ct'  voluntary  societies,  and  especially  the  American 
Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreign  Missions  be  request- 
ed to  use  greater  caution  in  respect  to  the  interference,  by 
their  agents,  in  the  controversies  of  the  Presbyterian 
churcli."  "I  mean  this,"  said  Mr.  Breckinridge,  "as  an 
indictment  of  the  Am.  B.  C.  F.  Missions." 

Mr.  Plumer  said  :  "There  has  been  no  evidence  fur- 
nished to  my  mind  that  the  bodies  here  aimed  at  have  done 
wrong.  The  improprieties  are  the  improprieties  of  the 
agents." 

Mr.  Smith  of  Charleston,  said:  "If  the  language  of  the 
amendment  be  right,  as  respects  the  Am.  B.  C.  F.  Mis- 
sions, it  is  equally  applicable  to  the  agents  of  the  Wes- 
tern Foreign  .Missionary  Society,  (Old  School,)  for  the 
agents  of  that  Board  have  interfered  vvith  us." 

Mr.  Engles  said  :  "In  the  station  which  1  occupy,  I  have 
hnd  access  to  a  number  of  facts  illustrating  the  influence 
of  Voluntary  Associations  on  the  controversies  of  the 
Presbyterian  church.  All  of  them,  in  a  greater  or  less 
degree,  have  meddled.  Yet  I  think  the  introduction  of  this 
amendment  unhappy  ;  it  has  consumed  time,  and  excited 
unpleasant  feeling.  Notwithstanding  the  explanations 
that  have  been  given  of  this  amendment,  it  implies  strong 
censure.  Of  all  the  societies  mean:  to  be  reached  by  it. 
the  Am.  Board,  I  believe  to  be  the  least  obnoxious  to  such 
a  charge.  I  could  state  facts  which  would  show  the  Sun- 
day School  Union  and  the  Tract  Society  are  much  more 
so,  if  they  are  to  be  held  responsible  for  the  doings  of  their 
g.^ents." 


108 


The  Convention  at  last  agreed  u[)On  a  Memorial  to  the 
General  Assembly.  It  was  presented  to  the  Convention 
by  Mr.  Breckinridge,  the  author  of  the  Act  and  Testimo- 
ny, and  is  much  ificliaracter  with  tliat  document,  tiioug!» 
prepared  with  more  cauiion.  It  treats,  1.  "In  relation  to 
doctrine,"  2.  "In  relation  to  cliurch  order."  3.  "In  re- 
lation to  difici|)line.''     4.  "Method  or  Reform." 


'm^- 


(  109  ) 


CHAPTER  XVL 


GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  OF  183: 


The  Assembh'  met  after  the  Convention  had  been  in  ses- 
sion about  a  week,  and  before  its  final  adjournment.  The 
election  of  Moderator  showed  a  majority  for  tlieOid  School 
part}'. 

The  Memorial  of  the  Convention  was  presented  to  the 
Assembly  the  next  day  after  it  met.  After  some  opposi- 
tion it  was  received,  read,  and  acted  upon,  and  was  made 
the  foundation  of  the  famous  Reform  Acts  of  1837,  \vhii:h 
resulted  in  the  schism  of  the  church. 

The  first  measure  proposed,  was  the  abrogation  of  llio 
Plan  of  Union  of  1801.     The  following  is  there  solution  : 

"As  the  Plan  of  Union,  adopted  for  the  new  settle- 
ments in  1801,  was  originally  an  unconstitutional  act  ,oa 
the  part  of  that  Assembly — these  import;! nt  standing  rules 
having  never  been  submitted  to  the  Presbyteries — and  as 
they  were  totally  destitute  of  authority  as  proceeding  from 
the  General  Association  of  Connecticut,  which  is  invested 
witli  no  power  to  legislate  in  such  cases,  and  especially  to 
enact  laws  to  regulate  churches  not  within  her  limits  ;  and 
as  much  confusion  and  irregularity  have  arisen  from  this 
unnatural  and  unconstitutional  system  of  union,  therefore, 
it  is  resolved,  that  the  Act  of  the  Assembly  of  1801,  en- 
titltjd  a  "Plan  of  Union,"  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby  ab- 
rogated." 

This  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  143  to  ll(,^ome  New 
School  men,  as  Pr.  Cleland,  voting  for  it  far  the  sake  of 
peace. 

Against  this   resolution   of  the  Assembly   the  minority 
protested.     Thev    urged,   that  tl:i«  plan  was  not  icnconsti- 
10 


110 

(utional — tliat  tlie  plan  was  never  submitted  to  the  Pres- 
byjteries,  because  it  was  not  regarded  as  possessing  the  na- 
ture of  "Constiluiional  rules,  to  be  obligatory  on  all  the 
churches,"  but  merely  an  ngreement  witri  another  body 
about  churches  in  the  new  settlements— that  the  Assem? 
biy  of  1801  had  only  exercised  the  power  granted  it  by  tlie 
Form  of  Government  [Chap.  ).  Sec.  2.]  in  declaring  "the 
terms  of  admission  into  the  communion"  of  the  Presby- 
rcrian  church — that  the  Plan  of  Union,  now  declared  to 
h^l  unconstitutional,  was  formed  twenty  years  before  the 
adoption  of  the  present  constitution  of  the  church — that 
this  Plan,  at  tl'O  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  present  con- 
stitution, was  in  full  operation,  and  of  acknowledged  au- 
thority as  common  law  in  the  church — that  it  had  been 
recognised  as  conslilu/ional,  by  the  General  Assembly, 
fiom  year  to  year,  for  more  than  one  third  of  a  century  — 
and  thai  the  Plan  was  not  "M??nrt/(/rrt/,"  but  a  most  natural, 
wise  and  benevolent  plan  for  promoting  the  unity,  increase, 
and  purity  of  the  church  in   the  new  settlements. 

The  minority  also  objected  to  the  mode  in  which  the  re- 
solution was  bi'ought  before  the  Assembly,  urging  that  a 
majority  of  the' Committee,  to  whom  the  Memorial  was  re- 
ferred, were  members  pf  the  Convention  that  presentpd  the 
Memorial,  and  that  more  than  eighty,  who  voted  for  the 
j'esolution  in  the  Assembly,  were  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion in  whose  name  the  Memorial  was  presented. 

The  next  measure  was  to  cite  certain  judicatories  to  ap- 
j'.ear  before  the  Assen)bly.  This  was  considered  a  test 
q;!C3lion,  and  showed  that  in  nn  Assembly  oftwo  hundred 
and  lifty  members,  the  Old  School  or  Reform  party  had  a 
lean  majority  of  only  six.  The  fcllov/ing  resolution  pass? 
cd  by  a  vote" of  128  to  122,  viz.  : 

'■'■Resolced,  That  the  proper  steps  be  now  taken  to  cite 
to  the  bar  of  the  next  Assembly,  such  inferior  judicato- 
ries as  are  charged  by  common  fame  with  irregularities.'' 

Against  this  resolution  and  two  others  on  the  same  sub- 
ject, there  was,  as  above  stated,  a  strong  vote.  The  plan 
of  citatior^'ould  have  been  constitutional,  yet  it  was  op- 
posed by  tTO  minority  on  the  ground  that  they  did  not  be- 
lieve that  the  accused  judicatories  were  guilty.  This  plan 
5vaS;  however,  soon  abandoned  by    the  majority,   as   too 


Ill 

''■ledious  and  irou'bJesome.^^  And,  at  once,  tlicir  entiiv: 
policy  was  changed.  •    .  - 

After  this  a  committee  of  ten  was  appointed  to  etTecf'aa 
amicable  division  of  the  {.hurchi  Rut  this  measure  rail- 
ed.    Tlie  reason  will  b^  stated  hereafter. 

The  next  measure  was  to  cut  oil  the  Synod  of  the  Wes- 
tern Reserve.     The  resolution  v/as  as  follows : 

'■'Resolved,  That  by  the  operation  of  the  abrogation  of 
the  Plan  of  Union  of  1801,  the  Synod  of  the  Western 
Reserve  is,  and  is  hereby  declared  to  be  no  longer  a  part 
of  the  Presbyterian  church  in  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica." 

Against  this  resolution  the  commissioners  from  that 
Synod  protested.  They  considered  this  act,  by  which  they 
were  excluded,  ^'unconstUntional  and  unjust.''^  They  as- 
serted that  they  were  regularly  commissioned,  had  been 
admitted  and  had  exercised  the  rights  of  members  for  two 
weeks — that  their  Presbyteries  had  a  regular  existence, 
according  to  the  constitution — that  some  of  them  existed 
prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  in  1821,  and  par- 
ticipated in  that  act.  They  say:  "If  there  was  any  thing 
wrong  in  the  original  organization  of  our  Presbyteries — 
which  we  do  not  admit  or  believe — this  wrong  was  charge- 
able, not  upon  %is,  but  upon  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh,  from 
whose  act  our  original  Presbyteries  received  their  exis- 
tence, which  act  has  been  sanctioned  by  twenty-two  Gen- 
eral Assemblies,  up  to  the  present  time."  They  com- 
plained that  this  new  discovery  of  unconstUutionality, 
which  could  relate  to  ^'■accommodaiion  churches''^  only, 
should  drive  Presbyteries,  ministers,  elders  and  people,  re- 
gularly introduced  according  to  the  most  orthodox  form, 
from  tb.eir  rights  and  privileges  without  a  trial.  They 
urged  the  disastrous  and  suicidal  bearing  of  such  a  policy 
upon  the  churches — that  under  its  operation  any  member, 
or  number  of  members,  who  may  happen  to  be  obnoxious 
to  the  majority,  may,  under  some  pretext  or  othei',  be 
driven  from  the  church  without  citation  or  tiial. 

This  very  policy  was  indeed  carried  out  in  the  next 
great  reform  measure — the  excision  of  three  Synods  in 
the  State  of  New  York.  The  following  resolutions  were 
adopted  :  viz~ 


112 

"Be  it  resolved  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  m  the  United  States  of  America, 

"1.  That  in  consequence  of  the  abrogation,  by  this 
Assembly,  of  the  Plan  of  Union  of  1801,  bntween  it  and 
the  General  Association  of  Connecticut, as  utterly  uncon- 
stitutional, and  therefore  null  and  void  from  the  begin- 
ning, the  Synods  of  Utica,  Geneva  and  Genesee,  which 
were  formed  and  attached  to  this  body,  under  and  in  ex- 
ecution cf  s;iid  Plan  of  Union,  be,  and  are  hereby  declar- 
ed to  be  out  of  the  ecclesiastical  connexion  of  the  Presby- 
terian church  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and  that 
they  are  not  in  form  or  in  fact  an  integral  portion  of  said 
church. 

2.  That  the  solicitude  of  the  Assembly  on  the  whole 
subject,  and  its  urgency  for  the  immediate  decision  of  it, 
are  greatly  increased  by  reason  of  the  gross  disorders 
which  are  ascertained  to  have  prevailed  in  those  Synods, 
(as  well  as  that  of  the  Western  Reserve,  against  which  a 
declarative  resolution,  similar  to  the  first  of  these,  has 
beon  passed  during  our  present  session,)  it  being  made 
clear  to  us,  that  even  the  Plan  of  Union  itself  was  never 
consistently  carried  into  efiect  by  those  professing  to  act 
under  it, 

3.  That  the  General  Assembly  has  no  intention,  by 
these  resolutions,  or  by  that  passed  in  the  case  of  the  Synod 
of  the  Western  Reserve,  toeffect  in  any  way  the  ministerial 
standing  of  any  members  of  either  of  said  Synods,  nor  to 
disturb  the  pastoral  relation  in  any  church;  nor  to  inter- 
fere with  the  duties  or  relation  of  private  christians  in  their 
respective  congregations  \  but  only  to  declare  and  deter- 
mine, according  to  the  truth  and  necessity  of  the  case, 
and  by  virtue  of  the  full  authority  existing  in  it  for  that 
purpose,  the  relation  of  all  said  Synods,  and  all  their  con- 
stituent parts  to  this  body,  and  to  the  Presbyterian  church 
in  the  United   States. 

4.  That  inasmuch  as  there  are  reported  to  be  several 
churches  and  ministers,  if  not  one  or  two  Presbyteries, 
now  in  connexion  with  one  or  more  of  said  Synods,  which 
are  strictly  Presbyterian  in  doctrine  and  order,  be  it,  there- 
fore, further  resolved,  that  all  such  churches  and  ministers 
us  wish  to  unite  with  us,  are  hereby  directed  to  apply  for 


ns 

admission  into  those  Presbyteries  belonging  to  our  con« 
nexion  which  are  most  convenient  to  their  respective  io- 
cations  ;  and  that  any  such  Presbytery  as  aforesaid,  being 
strictly  Presbyterian  in  doctrine  and  order,  and  now  in 
connexion  with  either  of  said  Synods,  as  may  desire  to 
unite  with  us,  are  hereby  directed  to  nnake  application, 
with  a  full  statement  of  their  cases,  to  the  next  General 
Assembly,  which  will  take  proper  order  thereon." 

The  vote  on  the  first  resolution  was,  Yeas  115 — Nays 
S8.  The  minority  had  been  made  less  by  the  exclusion  of 
the  members  of  the  Synod  of  the  Western  Reserve.  The 
vote,  however,  shows  that  the  Synods  were  excluded  by  a 
minority  of  the  Assembly  as  constituted.  Out  of  [wo- 
hundred  and  fifty  who  had  voted  on  the  citation  question,, 
only  115  voted  to  cut  off  the  three  Synods  in  New  York. 

After  the  above  resolution  had  been  offered,  Mr.  Jessup, 
one  of  the  minority,  moved  their  postponement  with  a 
view  of  introducing  the  following  substitute,  viz.  r 

"Whereas,  it  has  been  alleged,  that  the  Synods  of  Gc 
neva,  Genesee  and  Utica,  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in 
the  United  S-tates  of  America,  have  been  guilty  of  impor- 
tant delinquency  and  grossly  unconstitutional  proceedings, 
and  a  resolution  predicated  on  this  allegation  to  exclude 
the  said  Synods  from  the  said  Presbyterian  church,  hc^s 
been  offered  in  this  Assembl}'- ,-^  and,  whereas,  no  specif.ed 
act  of  said  Synods  has  been  made  the  ground  of  proceed- 
ing against  those  bouies,  nor  any  specific  members  of  those 
bodies  have  been  designated  as  the  delinquents;  and, 
whereas,  these  charges  are  denied  by  the  commissioners 
representing  those  bodies  on  this  floor,  and  an  inquiry  into 
the  wiiole  matter  is  demanded  ;  and,  whereas,  a  majoritv 
of  the  members  of  the  Synods  have  had  no  previous  notice 
of  these  proceedings,  nor  of  the  existence  of  any  chari^e 
against  them,  individually  and  collectively,  nor  any  oppo='- 
tunity  of  defending  themselves  agains-t  the  charges  so 
brought  against  them. 

Therefore,  Resolved,  That  the  Synods  of  Utica,  Ge- 
neva and  Genesee,  be,  and  hereby  are  cited  to  appear  on 
the  third  Thursday  of  May  next,  at  Philadelphia,  befoio 
the  next  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  Uni'ed  States  of  America,  to  show  what  they  have 
done  or  failed  to  do,  in  the  case  in  question,  and,  if  iiecei- 
10* 


114 

.^nry,  generally  to  answer  any  charges  that  may  or  can  be 
alleged  against  them,  to  the  end  that  the  whole  matter 
may  he  examined  into,  deliberated  upon,  and  judged  of,  ae- 
eording  to  the  Constitution  and  Discipline  of  the  Presby- 
terian church  in  the  United  States  of  America." 

Tills  course,,  which  would  have  been  constitutional,  was 
rejected  by  the  majority,  and  the  motion  to  postpone  was 
r-Lit  off  by  the  previous  question. 

Again>.t  this  excinding  act,  the  Commissioners  from  tiio 
(xcinded.  Synods,  protested.  They  deemed  the  act  utter- 
ly unconstilLilional  und  unprecedented.  They  contended 
that  the  Book  of  Discipline  gave  to  the  Assembly  nc' 
j)ower  to  adopt  sucli  a  mode  of  procedure,  in  tiie  trial  and 
j)unishment  of  ministers  and  members.  They  complain- 
ed, ih^t,  wh^n -fhe  regular  and  constitutional  method  of 
trial  was  proposed^  the  majority  rejected  it,  and  proceed- 
ed, in  the  face  of  all  constitutional  regulations,  to  cut  off 
four  or  five  hundred  ministers  in  good  and  regular  stand- 
ing. Thev  asserted  that  *'the  majority  of  the  churches 
within  the  bounds  of  said  Synods  were  strictly  Presbyte- 
rian in  tl;eir  structure,  and  with  few  exceptions,  even  the 
small  number  of  churches  originally  Congregational,  were 
not  organized  under  the  stipulations  of  the  said  Plan  of 
Union,  but  came  in  under  a  different  arrangement,  and 
l)0ssessed  rights  on  this  subject,  separate  from,  and  inde- 
pendf  nt  of,  the  Plan  of  Union  of  1801,  secured  to  them 
by  the  Assembly  of  1808,  by  which  the  Synod  of  Albany 
was  authorized  to  take  the  "Middle  Association"  under  its 
care.  They  urged,  tl.at  their  Presbyteries  and  Synods 
had  been  constitutionally  formed,  and,  as  such,  had  no  de- 
pendence upon  the  Plan  of  Union,  or  any  other  plan,  and 
that  their  ministers  had  been  regula.rly  inducted  into  the 
office  of  the  ministry.  They  complained  that  the  Con- 
vention party  were  permitted  to  uUer  vague  and  injurious 
reports,  and  when  requested,  refused  to  give  names,  pla- 
ces or  dates — that  "although  the  riglit  was  insisted  upon, 
•not  a  single  comniiss'oner  from  any  one  of  the  three  Syn- 
ods could  obtain  the  lloor  to  address  the  Assembly  on  the 
rt-'solution,  being  put  down  by  the  motion  for  the  previous 
5)uestion." 

The  impartial  reader  of  this  portion  of  the  history  of 
ihe  coutiover?y  will  be  surprised  at  the  contradictory  poi^ 


115 

■sitions  often  assumed  by  the  Reformers- — such  as  he  will 
find  in  tlie  short  compass  of  the  excinding  resokitions  a- 
bove.  In  the  third  resolution  the  Assembly  had  "no  inten- 
tion, by  these  resolutions  to  efTect  in  any  way  the  miniS' 
lerlal  standing  of  any  members  of  either  of  said  Synods." 
Yet  in  the  second  resolution,  they  had  said,  that  the  As- 
sembly's ^'urgency''''  on  this  subject  was  "greatly  increas- 
ed by  reason  of  the  grcfss  disorders  which  are  ascertain- 
ed to  have 'prevailed  in  those  Synods." 

The  Assembly  declared  that  their  acts  were  not  intend- 
ed to  interfere  with  the  organization  and  peace  of  the  Syn- 
ods, but  to  show  tiie  true  condition  of  those  Synods,  '•to- 
be  out  of  the  ecclesiastical  connexion  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church."  And  yet  the  last  resolution  directs  Presbyto-. 
ries,  ministers  and  churches  to  detaclT.theniselv?s  from 
their  Synods,  and  seek  a  new  connexion  with  the  Reform- 
ers, thus  attem()ting  to  exercise  authority  over  bodies  de- 
elared  to  be  "out  of'^  their  connexion — and  thus  attempt- 
ing to  disturb  their  order  and  peace  ! 

Th3  Editor  of  the  Protesiant  and  [lerald,  March  7, 
1830,  speaking  of  the  excision,  says:  "No  censure  was 
pasj^ed  either  upon  the  churches  of  ministers."  But 
soon  he  says  :  "We  now  leave  the  candid  reader  to  de- 
cide whether  the  Old  School,  as  watohn>eii  on  the  walls  of 
Zion,  were  not  bound  to  take  decisive  steps  to  arrest  the 
progress  of  dangerous  error  in  our  beloved  church." 
Here  it  is  stated  that  the  Synods  ^ere  severed,  because 
the  Old  Scliool  "were  bound  to  take  decisive  steps  to  ar- 
rest the  progress  of  dangerous  error,^'  or  in  the  language 
of  the  excinding  resolution,  because  of  ^^gross  disorders.^^ 
And  yet  we  are  told,  "no  censure  was  passed  either  upon 
the  churches  or  their  members." 

In  1837, after  the  excision.  Dr.  Miller,  in  writing  to  Mr. 
Plumcr,  and  in  speakingof  the  excinded  ministers,  says  : 
"Their  ministerial  character  is  left  untouched."  Herald, 
Sept.  21,  1837. 

Mr.  Plumer  must  have  smiled  nt  this  declaration,  when- 
he  contrasted  it  with  his  own  famous  speech  in  the  Assem- 
bly, when  these  excinding  resolutions  were  discussed.  An 
extract  will  be  given  to  shew  how  '■'■their  minislerial  char- 
acter teas  left  untouched,"  He  said  :  "We  have  been  told 
that  there  have  been  extensive   revivals  of  reliijion  iu  Lbs 


116^ 


regions  of  the  church  of  which  we  speak."  ''It  was  re- 
ported that  a  great  revival  was  going  on  in  a  certain  place, 
and  some  of  these  brethren  must  needs  go  up  and  see  the 
great  work.  It  turned  out  to  be  a  noisy  fanatical  mob  of 
christians  and  perfectianiafs  r  about  40  professed  conver- 
sion." Speaking  of  one  of  their  ministers,  he  says  : 
•'Have  you  not  heard  of  his  indecencies,  and  his  outrages 
upon  all  ihe  proprieties  of  social  life?"  "What  are  we 
to  think  of  a  Presbytery  that  will  permit,  without  cen- 
sure or  restraint,  such  a  man  to  roam  among  the  churches 
with  clean  papers,  scattering  errors,  fire-brands  and  death 
Avherever  he  goes?  And  what  are  we  to  tliink  of  a  Syn- 
od that  will  nourish  in  its  bosom  a  Presbytery  so  grossly 
remiss  in  dutv,and  so  criminally  negligent  in  discipline?" 
"A  gentleman  from  that  region  told  me  he  had  seen  young 
men  and  girls  walk  tlie  streets  in  broad  day,  hugging  each 
other  and  sliouting  hallelujah  1  This,  Sir,  is  the  natural 
working  of  the  system.  It  is  unrestrained  fanaticism."" 
Herald,  Aug.  3,  1837. 

The  scoffs  of  infidels  against  revivals  of  religion  are 
rarely  so  coarse.  And  yet  this  rudeness  of  Mr.  Plumer 
met  the  ap[)robation  of  the  majority.  In  making  this 
speech  he  was  called  to  order  by  the  minority.  The  mod- 
erator said  he  was  in  order.  ''An  appeal  was  taken  from 
the  chair,  but  the  house  sustained  the  moderator."  Her- 
ald, Aug.  3,   1837. 

Yet,  after  this  speech,  and  this  action  of  the  Assembly, 
and  the  excinding  resolution,  charging  the  Synods  with 
'"gross  disorders,''^  Dr.  Miller  writes  to  Mr.  Plumer  : 
'^Their  ministerial  character  is  left  untouched  !  !" 

The  next  measure  of  reform  was  the  imperative  act : 
viz.  : 

"This  Assembly  now  render  it  imperative  on  Presby- 
teries to  examine  all  who  make  application  for  admission 
into  their  bodies,  on  experimental  religion,  didactic  or  po- 
lemic theology  and  church  government."  This  was  to 
operate  on  ministers  passing  from  one  Presbytery  to  an- 
other, and  is  clearly  a  violation  of  the  constitution  of  the 
church.     Chap.  IG,  Art.  3. 

The  next  reform  measure  was  a  resolution  in  reference 
to  new  Presbyteries,  which  the  minority  urged  was  directly 


117 

in  the  face  of  the    constitution.     Cliap.  22,  Art.  1  and  2^ 
and  Chap.  12,  Art.  2.     It  is  as  follows  : 

'♦That  no  commissioner  from  a  new  formed  Presbytery 
shall  be  permitted  to  take  his  seat,  nor  shall  such  commis- 
sioner be  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Commissions,  until 
the  Presbytery  shall  have  been  duly  reported  by  the  Syn- 
od, and  recognised  by  the  Assembly  ;  and  that  the  same 
rule  apply  where  the  name  of  any  Presbytery  has  been 
changed." 

The  next  measure  of  reform,  was  the  dissolution  of  the 
Third  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia.  The  party  in  powey 
ordered  the  territory,  and  not  the  tninislers  of  this  Pres- 
bytery to  belong  to  the  old  Presbytery.  The  ministers 
and  churches,  now  out  of  the  church,  were  directed  toap- 
ply  for  admission  once  more,  as  if  they  never  had  been 
in  the  church.  This  was  protested  against  as  an  uncon- 
stitutional measure,  designed  to  act  as  an  excision  without 
trial,  or  at  least  result  in  the  exclusion  of  Mr*  Barnes  and 
other  Constitutional  ministers  of  good  standing. 

And,  lastly,  as  a  measure  to  complete  the  reform,  the 
Assembly  of  1837,  in  order  to  direct  and  control  the  or- 
ganization of  the  next  Assembly,  required  and  received  a 
pledge  from  the  clerks,  that  they  would,  in  making  out  v, 
roll  for  the  Assembly  of  1838,  omit  the  names  of  any 
Commissioners  from  any  of  the  cxcinded  bodies. 

These  reform  measures  were  viewed  with  astonishment 
by  the  religious  community  generally.  The  Elditor  of 
the  Cincinnati  Journal,  said  :  "It  will  be  seen  by  our  col- 
umns, that  the  effective  party  discipline  kept  up  by  the 
convention  or  caucus  at  Philadelphia,  were  producing  by 
our  last  accounts,  their  appropriate  results."  "All  the 
forms  of  law,  civil  and  ecclesiastical — all  the  principles  of 
natural  justice  have  been  set  at  nought."  "We  speak 
not  rashly,  nor  under  the  influence  of  party  feeling 
wrought  up  to  passion.  The  greatness  of  the  enormity 
would  render  idle  all  expressions  of  reproach." 

The  Editor  of  the  New  York  Observer  very  modestly 
charges  extravagance  upon  the  Convention  and  the  major- 
ity of  the  Assembly.  He  says:  "Without  intending  any 
imputation  against  the  honesty  of  the  speakers,  we  must 
caution  our    readers  against   believing  every  thing  that  is 


118 

said  in  the  speeches  delivered  at  Philadelphia,  either  m  t!je 
Assembly  or    Convention." 

The  Editor  of  the  Boston  Recorder  deemed  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Assembly  so  extraordinary,  that  he  could 
not  tind  a  place  for  them  in  his  paper.  His  remarks  are 
these  :  "Wo  mentioned  last  week,  in  an  extract  from  the 
Presbyterian,  the  opening  of  the  sessions  of  that  body  at 
Philadelphia,  on  the  18ih  ult.  We  could  not  in  good  con- 
science toward  God,  nor  in  loving  kindness  to  our  readers, 
nor  in  justice  to  ourselves,  give  even  an  abstract  of  all  the 
■proceedings  of  the  body.     We  shall  not  attempt  it." 


( 119) 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


GPERATON  OF  THE  EXCINDING  ACTS-ARGUMENTS  OF 
THE  PARTIES,  FOR  AND  AGAINST  THE  EXCISION-THE 
TRUE  CHARACTER  OF  THE  EXCINDING  SYNODS— THE 
POLICY  OF  THE  REFORMERS. 


The  acts  of  the  Assembly  of  1S37,  which  were  pecu» 
liiirlv  odious  to  the  minority,  were  the  excinding  opera, 
tions,  by  which  five  hundred  ond  nine  ministers,  five  hun^- 
dred  and  ninety-nine  churches  and  about  sixty  thou^- 
sand  members  were  severed  from  the  churcli,  and  at  once 
disfranchised  without  notice  or  trial. 

The  advocates  of  reform  justify  their  course  by  say- 
ing, that  the  Plan  of  Union  of  1801  was  unconstitutional, 
because  it  allowed  committee-men  to  act  as  elders,  &c. 
To  this  it  was  replied,  that  committee-men  have  not  been 
allowed  to  sit  in  the  Assembly  since  1831 — that  the  Plan 
cf  Union  had  not  the  nature  of  constitutional  rules — only 
a  contract  between  two  denominations  about  frontier 
churches,  and,  therefore,  not  unconstitutional;  and  that 
thirty-six  Assemblies  had  regarded  it  as  constitutional. 

But  say  the  friends  of  the  constitution,  admit  that  the 
Plan  was,  after  thirty-six  years,  found  to  be  unconstitu- 
tional. Let  the  Legislature  repeal  the  law.  Indeed, 
when  the  abrogation  of  the  Plan  was  voted  for,  the  Re- 
formers intended  nothing  more  than  a  repeal.  A  retro- 
spective operation  was  altogether  an  afterthought.  Dr. 
Cleland  and  others  voted  for  the  abrogation  or  repeal,  who 
have  steadily  opposed  the  excision,  and  the  retrospective 
bearing  of  the  repeal. 


1^0 

Under  this  Plan  of  Union  contracts  were  made,  and 
monies  were  given,  and  riglits  vested,  and  without  oppo- 
sition for  one   third  of  a  century. 

In  the  law  suit,  it  was  proved,  at  length,  and  from  the 
Minutes  of  the  Assembly,  that  from  1801  to  1837,  ihe 
Assembly  had  extended  its  jurisdiction  over  the  territory 
of  the  excinded   Synods. 

It  was  also  proved  from  the  Minuses  of  the  Assembly, 
ihai  year  after  year,  the  Assembly  acknowledged  the  re- 
ceipt of  funds  for  education,  missions,  theological  semina- 
ries, &c.,  from  those  Synods.  For  six  years  in  succes- 
sion from  1813  to  1818,  it  was  proved,  that  the  Assembly 
acknowledged  the  receipt  of  funds  from  the  excinded  re- 
gion for  the  Seminary  at  Princeton.  In  1815,  one  thou- 
sand six  hundred  and  sixty-six  dollars  were  received  for 
this  purpose.     See  McElroy's  Report,  pp.  31  to  36. 

Could  all  the  funds  collected  in  that  region  for  educa- 
tion, missions,  theological  seminaries,  &c.,  be  accurately 
summed  up,  they  would  show,  that  no  portion  of  the  whole 
body  have  done  more  for  the  Presbyterian  Church  than 
the  excinded  region. 

The  Constitutional  party  regarded  this  as  a  case  almost 
without  parallel  in  civil  or  ecclesiastical  jurisprudence — 
that  the  General  Assembly  should  pass  an  act  in  1801, 
under  which,  for  thirty-six  years,  contracts  were  made, 
rights  vested  and  protection  expected,  and  then  the  same 
legislature,  after  so  long  a  time,  declare  her  own  act,  not 
only  unconstitutional,  but  the  whole  superstructure  nuil 
and  void  ! 

Common  sense  decides,  that  when  a  legislature  passes 
an  unconstitutional  act,  and  that  act  is,  at  the  time,  op- 
posed, and  the  people  refuse  to  acquiesce,  as  in  tlie  Old  and 
New  Court  question  in  Kentucky,  the  whole  system  ought 
to  fall  with  the  repeal  of  the  law.  But  where  the  legis- 
lature passes  a  law,  believed  at  the  time  to  be  constitur 
tional,  to  which  there  is  no  opposition,  and  in  which  the 
people  acquiesced  for  a  third  of  a  century,  and  thpn  for 
the  same  legislature,  by  a  small  majority  to  decide  that 
the  old  law  is  unconstitutional,  and  nullify  every  thing 
built  upon  it,  is,  to  be  sure,  a  novel  procedure  in  civil  ju- 
ylsprudence  ! 

The  case  of  Georgia  and  the  Yazoo  purchase  has  been 


121 

quoted  as  a  case  m  point.  The  Legislature  of  (jeorgla, 
at  one  time,  sold  to  certain  individuals  a  large  tract  of  land 
in  the  Yazoo  country.  Under  this  law,  the  purciiasers 
made  grants  to  other  individuals.  But  a  subsequent  le- 
gislature abrogi'ited  the  law,  declaring  it  to  be  null  and 
void  in  all  its  provisions,  thus  endeavoring  to  cut  off  inno- 
cent purchasers  from  their  homes  and  rights,  which  had.> 
been  secured  to  them  by  the  same  legislature.  Chief  Jusi?  ■> 
tice  Marshall  decided  in  this  case  against  Georgia, -p.nd_., 
upon  this  principle — that  her  legislature  could  not  make  a 
law,  under  which  rights  were  vested,  and  then  again  re- 
peal her  law,  and  nullify  the  whole  superstructure  ;  iu 
other  words,  that  a  party  concerned  could  not  invalidate 
its  own  contracts  ;  and  that  what  was  done  by  one  legisla- 
ture in  this  way,  a  succeeding  one  could  not  undo;  that  if 
any  rights  were  thus  vested,  they  could  not  be  recalled  by 
absolute  power. 

In  this  case,  therefore,  Judcre  Marshall  decided  accordina: 
to  common  sense,  that  an  act,  though  an  unconstitutional 
law,  is  valid  if  rights  have  been  invested  under  it.  And 
in  reference  to  this  case,  he  sald:-"'Tiie  legislature  of 
Georgia  was  a  party  to  this  transaction  ;  and  for  a  party 
to  pronounce  its  ov/n  deed  invalid,  whatever  reason  may  be 
assigned  for  the  invalidity,  must  be  considered  a  mere  act 
of  power." 

Bringing  the  same  principles  to  bear  in  the  case  of  the 
Assembly  of  1837,  we  see  what  would  be  the  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  it  wdulH  be 
this:  "The  Assembly, '^Ate  Supreme  Legislature^  of  tho 
church,  was  a  party  to  this  transaction  ;  and  for  a  party 
to  pronounce  its  own  deed  invalid,  whatever  reason  may  be 
assigned  for  the  invalidity,  must  be  considered  a  mere  act 
of  power." 

These  views  also  are  sanctioned  by  statute  law,  and  ac- 
cord  with  the  usages  of  all  business  men.  If  one  man  ea- 
ters ihto  a  contract  with  another,  the  law  will  not  allow 
him  to  miUify  his  own  contract. 

But  admit  the  Old  School  exposition  of  the  constitutional 

law  to  be  correct,  and  what  would  be  the  result?      It  would 

sweep  away  all  security  based  upon  legislative  enactment. 

One  legislature   may    pass  a  law  unJer    v/hich  rights  and 

11 


122 

funds  may  be  vested.  Bat  the  next  legislature  may  noi 
only  repetii  the  law,  but  nullify  the  whole  superstructure, 
(Jcclaring  it  "null    and  voil  from  the  beginning." 

About  the  time  Hhe Supreme  Legislature'  cf  the  Presby- 
terian Church  formed  the  Plan  of  Union,  the  Supreme  Le- 
gislature of  the  United  States  purchased  from  a  foreign 
power  that  large  tract  of  country  called  Louisiana,  which 
was  added  to  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  and  out  of 
\vhich  were  i^iade  the  States  of  Louisiana,  Mississippi  and 
Arkansas.  It  was  said  at  the  time  that  the  purchase  was 
unconstitutional.  But  it  was  regarded  as  advantageous 
r>nd  ratified  by  Congress.  But  suppose  that  in  1839,  or 
thirty-six  years  after  the  purchascj  the  arrangement  all 
the  while  being  acquiesced  in,  the  question  had  been 
brought  up  again.  Suppose  that  in  Congress,  party  ex- 
citement ran  high,  and  that  there  was  a  struggle  for  pow- 
er.  Suppose  that  the  administration  party  were  stronger 
than  the  Whigs,  but  feared  that  the  other  party  would 
g-ua  the  ascendency,  and  to  prevent  it,  some  Northern 
Democrat  had  got  up  in  Congress  and  said  :  "The  Louis- 
iana country  ouglit  never  to  have  been  added  to  the  Un- 
ion. Half  the  population  were  Spaniards  and  French. 
They  had  no  love  for  our  Republican  institutions.  That 
country  has  been  the  hot-bed  of  whigism.  They  have  opr 
posed  the  administration  of  the  government.  And  be- 
side all,  they  came  into  the  Union  in  an  unconslitutioncd 
manner.  The  tv.-o  parties  cannot  act  together.  There 
must  be  a  separation.  \\'e  ought  to  sever  from  the  Union 
these  foreigners.  We  now  have  the  power — -we  may  nev- 
er have  again.  I  now  propose  that  \ye  cut  off  States  enough 
to  secure  forever  hereafter  a  preponderance  to  our  party." 
Suppose  the  resolution  had  been  offered,  and  by  the  vote 
of  a  small  majority,  the  States  of  Louisiana,  Mississippi 
and  Arkansas  declared  to  be  not  of  the  Union — no  longer 
an  integral  part  of  the  United  States  \  What  would  the 
civilized  world  have  said  of  su  -h  a  manoeuvre  of  a  par- 
ty in  Congress  to  secure  power?  Whether  such  a  cose 
v/ould  have  been  analogous  to  the  action  of  the  Assembly 
of  1837,  the  candid  reader  must  decide. 

But  admit  the  correctness  of  the  principle  contended  for 
by  the  Old  School,  and  see  the  result.     Because  the  Plan 


123 

of  Union  was  unconstitulional,  the  whole  is  nuliifjcd.  IF 
the  formationof  the  Syno'is  was  unconstitutional,  null  and 
void,  so  was  the  formation  of  the  Presbyteries.  And  if  the' 
Presbyteries  were  a  nullity,  so  were  their  acts — the  liccn- 
s-ure  and  ordination  of  ministers,  &:c.  And  thus  it  will 
follow,  as  a  result,  that  the  marriage  connexions  in  the  re- 
gion of  the  Synods  are  nu!!  and  void;  and  ilie  good  pco|»iQ 
there,  for  thirty-six  years,  have  been  living  in  adultery, 
and  their  children  illegitimate  ! 

But  the  Constitutional  party  have  never  admitted  the 
unconstitutionality  of  the  Plan  of  Union,  except  for  sake 
of  argument.  Indeed,  the  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylva- 
nia, Judge  Rogers  presiding,  regarded  the  Plan  of  Union 
as  constitutional.  So  did  the  Court  in  Bank,  Chief  Justice 
Gibson  presiding. 

But  the  advocates  of  reform  have,  at  times,  endeavored 
to  smooth  over  the  excision,  by  urging,  that  the  Synods 
were  not  cat  off — only  disowned,  because  noi  members  of 
the  Assembly. 

To  this  the  other  party  replied,  that  they  were  members, 
as  would  appear  from  the  minutes  of  the  Assembly,  the 
Assembly's  Digest,  the  testimony  of  the  whole  churrh  up 
to  1837,  and  of  the  entire  Old  School  Convention  of  1837 — 
the  citation  resolutions  and  other  reform  acts  for  days  af- 
ter the  repeal  of  the  Plan,  and  the  testimony  of  such  Old 
School  men  as  Dr.  Blythe,  who  still  say  the  Synods  were 
members  of  the  Assembly. 

Again:  the  Reformers  have  urged,  that  trie  churches 
were  not  Presbyterian  but  Congregational  churches.  This 
representation  was,  by  them,  intended  to  justify  the  ex- 
cision. 7'he  truth  on  this  point  is  not  generally  known. 
Admitting,  however,  that  the  churches  were  not  strictly 
Presbyterian,  ought  they  to  be  cast  out  and  disfranchised 
for  acting  upon  the  faith  of  a  Plan  proposed 'and  re- 
commended and  sanctioned  by  the  Assembly  itself,  for 
more  than  one  third  of  a  century  ? 

But  the  truth,  in  reference  to  these  churches,  will  not 
warrant  this  admission.  In  1837,  Rev.  James  Wood  pub- 
lished a  pamphlet  on  this  subject.  As  he  was  an  Old 
School  rnan,  in  the  pay  of  the  party ..jie  wiJ!  not  be  charged' 


■J  24 

■wiih  favoring  the  excindeJ  Synod.".     lie  says  this  was  the 
chnracter  of  the  Synods  in   i887  ; 


Pvnods.                   Pres.  Churches. 
litica,                            43 
(Teneva,                       109 
Ceno'sse.                      308 
Wesiern  Reserve,       S2 

,',  18. 

C 

24. 

on.  Churches. 

38 

42 

.53 

113 

287 
Fee  Wood's  Pamphlet,  pp. 

24(; 

31. 

From  Mr.  Wood's  statements,  therefore,  it  appears  that 
tiiere  was  a  handsome  inajority  of  Presbyterian  chureh- 
es — enough  without  the  Congregational  churches  for  four 
Synods  upon  the  n-ost  rigid  terms.  This  has-  been  admit- 
ted by  the  Reformers  in  reference  to  all  the  Synods,  ex- 
cept the  Western  Reserve.  About  it  much  has  been  said, 
ns   though  it  lacked  almost  every  constitutional  element. 

According  to  Mr.  Wood's  pamphlet,  page  31,  the  Synod 
of  Western  Reserve  had  eight  Presbyteries  and. thirty-two 
Presbyterian  churches — an  average  of  four  churches  to  a 
Presbytery.  But  as  Mr.  Wood  states,  on  the  authority 
of  the  Stated  Glerk  of  Synod,  that  ?ome  of  the  Presby- 
teries had  only  two  Presbyterian  churches,  it  was  urged 
tliat  these  Presbyteries  could  have  no  constitutional  exist- 
ence. This  ground  was  taken  by  tlsose  who  urged  that 
the  constitution  required  three  churches  to  constitute  a 
Presbytery.  But  it  makes  no  such  requisition.  Chap'er  10, 
Sec.  2,  says  :  "  A  Preby-tery  consists  of  all  tlie  ministers 
iind  one  ruling  elder  from  each  congregation  within  a  cer- 
tain district."  Sec.  7,  of  tlie  same  Chapter  says  :  '«  Any 
three  ministers,  and  as  many  elders  as  may  be  present, 
belonging  to  the  Presbytery,  being  met  at  the  time  and 
])lace  appointed,  shall  be  a  quorum  to  do  business."  So 
far  as  the  constitution  is  concerned,  there  might  be  a  Pres- 
bytery without  any  church.  But  if  there  are  churches, 
their  representation  is  provided  for.  * 

It  has  also  been  stated,  that  the  Synod  of  the  Western 
Reserve  sent  twenty  delegates  to  the  GlaneraJ  Assembly 
Avhen  she  was  "  not  entitled  to  more  than  four,  or  at  most 
eight."  [See  Reply  to  Manifesto,  p.  15.]  So  far  as  the 
constitution  is  concerned,  this  was   also  a  "roimdless  as- 


scriion.  The  roprescniation  in  the  Assembly  is  not  in  ilic 
ratio  of  ciiurciies,  but  of  ministers.  And  if,  in  this  Sy- 
nod* there  were  more  ministers  than  Presbyterian  church- 
es, or  if  some  of  the  ministers  were  preaching  to  Congre- 
gational churches,  trie  Plan  of  Union  ct"  their  own  Gen- 
eral Assembly  was  to  blame,  and  not  the  ministers.  BL<t 
how  it  happened  to  be  discovered  in  1837,  that  it  was  worse 
for  Presbyterian  ministers  to  preach  to  Congrcgationalists 
than  to  infidels  or  heathens  must  be  left  to  the  reader  to 
conjecture. 

In  reference,  however,  to  the  true  character  of  the  ex- 
cinded  Synods,  the  Old  School  estimate  was  more  fully 
made  out  by  Mr.  Hubbell,  counsel  for  the  Old  School  par- 
ty in  the  law  suit.  Speaking,  in  his  opening  speech,  oi 
the  operations  of  the  excision,  he  said  :  "  'i  lie  measure 
would  result  in  the  exclusion  of  but  two  hundred  and  six- 
ty-nine churches,  or  thereabouts,  that  being  the  estimi'.tid 
number  of  Congregational  churches  in  the  bounds  of  these 
Synods.  The  residue  of  the  five  hundred  and  ninety- 
nine  churches  being  Presbyterian."  McE-lroy's  Report,  p.- 
167. 

This  estimate  of  Mr.  Hubbeil  gives  three  hundred  and 
thirty  truly  Presbyterian  churches,  with  thirty  or  foriy 
thousand  members,  cut  off  from  the  church  of  their  fath- 
ers, because  of  their  connection  with  Congrcgationalists. 
according  to  the  plan  and  recommendation  of  their  own 
General  Assembly. 

But  the  statements  of  Mr,  Wood  and  Mr.  Ilubbell  are 
from  party  men.  They  are  given  to  make  the  case  as 
strong  for  the  Reformers  as  they  can  mal;e  it.  The  in- 
telligent reader,  however,  knows  that  the  statements  of  ;i 
party  at  law,  or  their  council,  are  not  to  be  fully  relied  on. 
So  in  this  controversy,  in  the  law  suit,  the  Rev.  Miles 
P.  Squire  was  examined  and  cross-examined,  upon  oa^ij, 
in  reference  to  the  character  of  the  churches.  He  stated^ 
that  he  had  been  an  agent  for  the  Home  I\Iissionary  Soci- 
ety ;  had  travelled  in  seventeen  counties  in  the  excinded 
region  ;  and  speaking  of  the  Synod  to  which  he  belonged, 
(Geneva)  he  said,  "  1  know  of  no  churches  that  are  slriot-- 
iy  Congregational."     See  McElroy's  Report,  p.  105. 

In  this  Synod,  however,  Mr.    Wood  had  forty-two  Con-- 
gregaiional  churchesv    But  Mr.  Stjuire  made  oatli  that- he- 
ll* 


r-26 

Old  not  know  ono  '■^strictly  Congregational*^  church.  This 
testin.ony,  upon  oath,  of  one  who  lived  upon  the  ground, 
belonged  to  the  Synod,  and  had  travelled  extensively  as- an 
rtgent  among  the  churches,  will  show  with  what  caution 
the  assertions  of  common  funje,  or  interested  individu- 
als, should  he  received. 

But  the  injustice  of  the  excision,  it  v;as  urged,  was  still 
more  glaring  as  regarded  tiie  ministers  who  were  cut  cfF. 
They  were  nearly  one  fourth  cf  the  whole  number  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church.  They  were  all  Presbyterian 
n\\x\\s\Qvs,  recti- in  ecdesia.  This  has  never  been  denied. 
Mr.  Hubbell,  in  the  trial,  admitted  this.  Speaking  of  the 
tive  hundred  and  nine  ministers  who  were  declared  out  of 
the  church,  he  said  :  '"None  of  ti.cm  were  Congregational ;. 
the  clergv  of  this  district  having,  almost  without  excep- 
tion, caused  themselves  to  be  ordained  as  Presbyterians." 
McElroy,  p.  JG7. 

This  excluding  process  of  1837  was  the  first  thing 
that'  fully  convinced  die  churches  that  they  would  be  forced 
to  submit  to  a  division.  It  was  indeed  regarded  as  divis- 
ion itself.  Against  these  measures,  the  five  hundred  and 
nine  excindtd  ministers,  and  their  friends,  in  and  out  of 
the  Assembly,  planted  themselves.  And  of  these  reform 
jneasures,  the  friends  of  the  constitution  have  greatly  com- 
plained, and  very  ju>.tly  to  be  sure. 

The  Reformers  tiiemselves  seemed  sensible  of  the  enor- 
mity of  their  acts.  Up  to  the  excision  of  1837  they  had 
reproached  the  other  party  for  crying  "neutrality"  an3' 
''no  ditTerence."  But  now  they  believed  they  had  done 
something  that  would  arouse  the  "New  School,"  and 
make  them  willing  to  strive.  The  Editor  of  the  Western 
}*resbyteripn  Herald,  June  2],  1837,  in  informing  his 
leaders  of  the  excluding  acts,  calls  upon  his  brethren  to 
"stand  firm  aiiiid  the  storm  the  New  School  will  try  10 
raise."  And  in  another  editorial  of  the  same  date,  he  says  : 
"The  New  School,  as  might  have  been  exj)ccted.  are  great- 
ly excited." 

That  the  Reformers  anticipated  a  "slorm,"  and  when 
it  came,  acknowledged  "it  n.ighl  have  been  expected," 
shows  a  consciousness  of  the  enormity  of  the  wrong. 

The  Assembly  of  1837  felt  that  an  apology  was  neces- 
sary, not,  it  V.  ou.'i  2ccm,  for  forcing  separation,  but  for  th& 


127 

mamier,  apparently  so  un-ust^  Hence,  in  their  Circular 
l^pistle,  ihey  plead  necessity  and  say  :  "To  have  aiieiriptcd 
to  separate  from  us  the  brethren  with  whom  we  could  no 
longer  walk  in  peace,  by  personal  process  in  each  case, 
would  obviously  have  been  impossible,  and  even  if  possi- 
ble, tedious,  agitating  and  troublesome  in  the  highest  de- 
gree. And  though  the  measures  were  extraordinary  and 
alarming,  yet  they  hope  the  churches  will  bear  with  them, 
ii.asmuch  as  good  may  come  out  of  evil  !"  They  say  i!^ 
the  same  Circular  Episile:  "'It  is  our  earnest  hope,  with 
respect  to  the  brethren  thus  severed  [cut  off]  from  us,  that 
both  parties  will  be  essentially  benefitted  by  the  separation. 
VVe  trust  that  both  parties  will,.henGcforth,.  proceed  in  the 
conscientious  discharge  of  duty,  without  being  crippled  or 
embarrassed  by  each  other;  and  that  hereafter  there  will 
be  no  strife  between  us,  than  who  shall  love  the  Redeemer 
most,  and  who  shall  serve  him  with  the  warmest  zeal." 

There  was  to  be  sure  a  discrepancy  between  their  anli- 
cipalions  and  hopes.  The  Nev/  School  had  opposed  strife- 
and  division,  and  tried  to  live  in  peace  with  their  breth- 
ren. But  in  1837,  in  an  Assembly  of  two  hundred  and 
fitly  members,  the  Old  School,  by  ancident,  had  a  lean  ma- 
jority of  only  six.  They  cut  of  their  brethren  by  a  sum- 
mary process,  deprived  them  of  rights  and  privileges  aa 
Presbyterians,  and  covered  them  with  reproaches.  Then 
they  anticipate  a  "s^orm,"  and  that  the  New  School  would- 
be  '^oreatly  excited^'  and  at  the  same  time  hoped  "that 
hereafter  there  will  be  no  strife"  between  the  parties ! 

This-the  New  School  called  pacification  aggressive. 

The  cxcinding  acts,  however,  accomplished  what  they- 
were  designed  to  effect — the  division  of  the  church.  That 
tiiis  was  their  primary  design  is  evident  from  the  speech- 
es and  action  of  the  party,  notwithstanding  much  has  been 
said  nhout  order,  and  the  unconslitutionality  of  (he  Plan 
of  Unio7u 

When  the  resolution  for  the  excision  of  the  Synod  of 
the  Western  Reserve  was  offered,  Dr.  Baxter,  in  making 
the  opening  speech  in  favor  of  it,  said  ;  "As  the  negocia- 
tions  for  a  voluntary  separation  have  failed,  the  action 
proposed  by  this  resolution  becomes  indispensably  necea- 
snry.     It  is  not  dictated  by  the  spirit  of  uiikindness,  but  is 


128 

adopted  as  the  only  course  whicli  is  !eft  to  eflect  a  separa- 
tion."    W.  P.  Herakl,  28th  June,  1837. 

If  anv  one  in  the  Assembly  know  what  wns  the  design 
of  the  excinding  acts,  Dr.  Baxter  did  ;  for  he  was  the 
Chairman  of  the  Old  School  Convention — a  Convenlioa 
which  arranged  and  carried  through  tlie  Assembly  every 
important  measure. 

Tliis  corresponds  with  the  declaration  of  the  Assembly 
of  1837,  in  their  Pastoral  Letter,  in  which  they  speak  of 
the  division  of  the  church  being  ''Ike  most  desirable  object.'^ 
This  is  the  language  :  "Discerning  men  have  perceived, 
for  a  number  of  years,  that  the  affairs  of  our  beloved 
church  were  hastening  to  a  crisis,  and  when  the  members 
of  the  Assembly  came  together,  the  state  of  the  parties 
was  such,  as  to  make  it  manifest,  that  a  division  of  the 
church  was  the  most  desirable  object  that  could  be  ef- 
fected." 

This  is  confirmed  by  the  Reform  Assembly  of  1839. 
Speaking  of  the  separation,  they  say  :  "The  last  General 
Assembly  acted  under  the  conviction,  that  the  only  possi- 
ble way  to  secure  peace,  was  by  the  separation  of  the  par- 
tics  in  our  church."  They  expressly  say,  that  their  de-- 
sign,  in  thiir  first  reform  measures,  was  '7o  effect  the  sepa- 
ration.'''' Again,  in  the  same  Letter,  the}'  say  :  "This  pro- 
cedure was  indeed  novel;  it  had  never  been  resorted  to  in 
our  church  before,  and  from  its  very  novelty  was  calcu- 
lated to  startle  minds  not  accustomed  to  that  mode  of  ac- 
tion ;  it  was,  however,  the  only  remedy  for  our  case."" 
They  felt,  as  one  of  their  members  es-[iressed  himself: 
^'We  now  have  the  majority — we  may  never  have  again." 

The  excinding  process  was  indeed  "novel''  and  ^^was 
calculated  to  startle."  It  was,  however,  they  tell  the  world, 
"the  only  remedy  to  effect  this  separation.'" 

The  minority  also  complained  of  the  great  destitution  of 
impartiality  in  the  Assembly  of  1837  in  their  application 
of  the  principles  of  excision.  If  the  existence  of  church- 
es, it  was  inquired,  on  the  'accommodation  plan'  destroys 
Synods  and  Presbyteries,  which  have  such  churches,  why 
confine  this,  in  its  application,  to  the  four  Synods  ?  Why 
not  declare  null  and  void  all  plans  of  union  with  the  As- 
sociate Reformed  Cliurcb  and  the  Congregational isis  ? 
Vi'hy  not   declare   the   Synods   of  Philadelphia  and  New 


^\ 


129 

York  oiu  of  the  church,  because  tlie  plan  of  union  of  1821 
with  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  had  operated  there, 
allowing  the  existence  of  Presbyteries  upon  the  plinciple 
of  elective  affinity,  and  allovvinri;  a  Presbytery  of  two  Se- 
cedersto  have  as  much  power  in  the  General  Assembly, 
as  our  Presbyteries  of  three  members  ?  Why  not  anni- 
liilule  also  this  'accommodation  plan  ?"  And  why  limit 
the  excision  in  reference  to  the  'accommodation  plan'  with 
Congregationalists  ?  If  the  Synod  of  the  Western  Ive- 
serve  ought  to  be  cut  off  for  this  reason,  so  ought  the  Syn- 
od of  Western  New  York,  and  if  these  ought  lo  be  cut  off 
for  this  reason,  so  ought  the  Synods  of  Albany,  New  Jer- 
sey, Soul!)  C-irolina  and  Georgia. 

This  was  explained  by  the  declarations  and  actions  of 
the  Reformers.  The  Seceders  who  came  into  the  Presby- 
terian Church  under  the  Plan  of  Union  of  1821,  uniform'^ 
sidtd  with  the  Old  School.  In  reference  to  those  who  had 
come  in  under  the  Plan  of  1801  it  was  not  so.  'J'hese  facts 
caused  the  Old  School  to  betray  their  partiality.  A  very 
zealous  advocate  of  the  reform  has  said  :  "Of  the  two 
parties  in  the  church,,  the  Old  School  or  Orthodox  and  the 
New  School  or  Latitudinarian,  the  Synods  sided  witli  the 
latter  uniformly."     See  Reply  to  Manifesto,  p.   16. 

In  noticing  such  an  objection  to  the  Synods,  the  New 
School  have  been  bold  to  assert,  that  the  fact  of  the  Synods 
siding  with  the  New  School  was  their  oflence  !  It  was 
asked  :  "Suppose  the  four  Synods  had  sided  with  the  Old 
Scliool  uniformly,  had  patronized  the  Philadelphia  Pres- 
byterian, t'he  Louisville  Herald,  and  the  Biblical  Reper- 
tory, had  sent  their  young  n.en  to  Princeton,  had  given 
their  money  to  the  Assembly's  Board,  their  Sunday  School 
and  Tract  Society,  do  you  think  they  e\er  would  have 
been  severed  or  disowned?"  See  Answer  to  the  Replv, 
p.  8. 

'J'here  is  no  impartial  reader  of  the  liislory  of  ihoss 
f'vents,  V  ho  can  decide,  that  the  Synods  would  have  been 
cut  off,  if  they  could  have  been  brought  up  to  this  point  of 
party  discipline. 

'Rut  why  cut  off  only  four  Synods/  Wy  not  cut  off  ail 
the  Synods,  Albany,  New  Jersey,  &P.,  in  which  the  accom- 
modation plan  had  operated  ?  A  careless  reader  of  Old 
School  statements  might  be  led  to  suppose,  that  the  cons'.i'- 


330 

tution  and  order  of  the  church  only  demanded  the  excis- 
ion of  the  four  Synods.  But  some  of  the  bolder  men  in 
the  Assembly  of  18R7,  by  their  honest  avowals,  let  in 
know  what  was  the  object.  The  first  stroke  at  excision 
only  cut  off  one  Synod.  Here  some  of  the  Reformers,  as 
Dr.  BIythe  and  others,  wanted  to  stop.  But  it  was  fear- 
ed that  would  leave  the  New  School  too  strong  in  the  As- 
sembly. The  most  prominent  man  in  the  party  declared 
he  would  not  stop  there  in  the  work  of  reform,  but  boldly 
avowed  :  "  We  toill  cut  off  a  svfficieni  number  io  give  forever 
hereafter  a  majority  to  one  side  of  the  house.''^ 

By  cutting  off  nearly  one  fourth  of  the  ministers,  lliey 
secured  to  themselves  u  handsome  majority  of  those  whO' 
were  left.  But  it  has  been  a  matter  of  wonderment  to 
many,  that  men,  who  clamored  so  loudly  for  honesty  and' 
fair-dealing,  did  not  separate  honorably  from  the  New 
School  parly,  if  they  were  determined  to  separate.  Why 
resort  to  such  an  expedient  to  make  an  impression  that  the 
Old  School  vvere  a  majority  in  the  church  ?  This  did  not 
happ3n  by  chance — there  was  policy  in  it.  The  Editor  of 
the  Western  Presbyterian  Herald,  July  21,  1836,  says  : 
"There  are  always  some  ready  to  join  the  strongest  party, 
just  because  it  is  the  strongest  party."  This  class  is  gen- 
erally pretiy  large — a  sort  of  floating  capital.  And  the 
Reformers  knew,  that  if,  by  some  stroke  of  policy,  they 
could  gain  all  that  class,  by  making  them  think  they  were 
the  stronger  party,  then  they  could  out-number  the  friends 
of  the  constitution,  and  boldly  set  up  a  claim  to  the  name-, 
rights  and  funds  of  the  whole  body. 

In  this  way,  by  the  excision  of  1837,  the  Reformers 
gained  an  advantage  over  their  brethren.  By  this  policy 
they  had  made  themselves  a  majority  in  the  Assembly. 
There  was  then  presented,  at  once,  to  the  mind  of  the  man 
who  had  not  been  cut  off  a  strong  temptation  to  fall  in 
with  the  strongest  party.  In  meeting  the  results  of  the 
excision,  the  Old  School  ministers  generally  had  nothing  to 
lose,  but  the  New  School,  every  thing.  The  Old  Seiiool 
ministers  hoped,  by  representing  the  excluded  as  no  Pres- 
byterians, and  those  who  stood  by  them,  as  Seceders,  !o 
keep  their  own  churches  together,  and  to  divide  and  con- 
quer the  churches  of  New  School  ministers,  unless  they 
would  come   into  measures^ 


131 

in  defence  of  the  measures  of  the  Assembly  of  1837, 
the  Reformers  have  been  able  to  make  no  substantial  plea, 
except  necessity.  They  discovered  that  the  division  of  the 
church  was  the  most  desirable  object.  They  professed  to 
believe  that  tJiere  was  great  heresy  and  disorder  among  the 
New  School,  and  to  have  attempted  to  discipline  the  dis- 
.orderiy,  according  to  the  constitution,  would  have  been  "te- 
dious and  troublesome."  They  urged,  that  unless  sonie- 
ihing  was  done  then,  it  might  never  be  done  ;  that  they 
might  never  have  a  majority  again  ;  and  they  thus  found 
it  necessary  to  cut  oil" enough  of  the  New  School  "to  give 
forever  hereafter  a  majority  to  one  side  of  the  house,"  and 
make  it  no  longer  "tedious  and  troublesome"  to  govern  the 
rest  as  they  might  choose. 

Whatever  the  Reformers  may  say  about  their  love  of 
truth  and  order,  and  the  necessity  that  was  laid  upon 
them,  the  conviction  will  fasten  upon  the  public  mind, 
and  will  go  down  to  posterity,  that  they  went  into  the  As- 
sembly of  1S37  with  a  fearful  lust  of  domination,  deter- 
mined to  divide  the  church,  or  to  adopt  measures  "to  effect 
fhis  separation."  The  reader  must  decide  whether  or  not 
Pr.  Cox  expressed  himself  too  strongly  when  he  said  : 

"Tlipy  make  the  schism,  and  they  feed  the  fire, 
Which  distant  ages  scarce  shall  see  expire, 
Ail  to'  protect  their  party's  godless  sway, 
All  to  control  the  funds  and  have  at  last  tlieir  way." 


(  3.32  ) 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 


THE  CONTROVERSY   ABOUT  DOCTRINES. 


DifFfjrences  in  doctrinal  views  have,  at  all  timcg, 
been  tolerated  in  the  Presbyterian  church.  This  every 
Presbyterian  knows.  And  even  the  best  men  among  the 
Old  School  say  it  is  allowable.  Dr.  Miller,  in  his  Let- 
ters to  Presbyterians,  says  :  "Some  differences  of  opinion 
among  those-in  the  same  communion  inusl  necessarily  he 
al/owed.^' 

h  has  been  shown,  in  a  former  chapter,  that  there  was 
not  perfect  uniformity  among  those  who  constituted  the 
Westminister  Assembly.  Nor  has  it  been  attained  at  any 
one  time,  or  even  expected,  except  by  a  very  small  portion 
of  the  church.  The  differences  were  not,  however,  re- 
garded as  fundamental  ;  yet  since  the  Hopkinsian  contro- 
versy especially,  the  points  of  difference  have  assumed 
importance,  as  auxiliary  to  the  accomplishment  of  certain 
objects — the  securement  of  a  majority,  the  control  of  tlse 
church,  &c. 

The  two  parties  in  the  church  were  mainly  divided  on 
these  points,  viz:  The  nature  of  imputation — The  na- 
ture of  man's  inability — And  the  nature  and  extent  of  the 
atonement.  The  New  School  denied  our  personal  indenti- 
ty  with  Adam — that  his  sin  is  really  and  truly  our  sin,  or 
that  there  is  a  literal  transfer  of  moral  character.  They 
taught,  that  the  sinner's  inabiliiy  to  do  what  God  requires, 
consists  in  his  want  of  disposition,  or  an  "in^.bility  of 
will."  They  taught,  that  Christ  did  not  suffer  as  much  as 
the  whole  liuman  family  would  have  suffered — not  suffer- 
ing eternal  punishment,  which  was  the  penalty  of  the 
law;  and  yet  he  tasted  death  foreveiyman. 


133 

Gri  these  points,  tho  New  School  said,  that  they  corb- 
curred  vviih  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  Bible.  The 
GiJ  School  said  they  did  not. 

In  1831,  Mr.  Barnes  was  before  the  Assembly,  charged 
with  heresy.     But  he  was  honorably  acqui'.ted. 

In  1834,  the  Act  and  Testimony  men  raised  the  alarm 
about  *'t/ie  alarming  errors^^  which  had  been  "  counter 
nanced  and  sustained  by  the  acts  ofthe  supreme  judicatories 
of  our  church."  The  signers  of  that  document  seemeei 
to  feel,  that  they  had  entered  into  a  solemn  league,  and  in- 
deed they  proved  true  to  their  vow.  No  matter  what 
measure  came  up  in  Presbytery  or  Synod  or  General  As- 
sembly, they  seemed  to  bo  sworn  men.  This  was  clearly 
manifest  in  the  Assembly  of  1836,  in  the  trial  of  Mr.  Barnes. 
Sixty-seven  members  who  had  signed  the  Act  and  Tes- 
timony, voted  for  his  condemnation — not  a  man  who  had 
signed  that  document  voted  to  sustain  him.  Every  impar- 
tial mind  will  say,  that  these  men  had  prejudged  the  cast', 
and  felt  that,  by  the  Act  and  Testimony,  they  were  pledg- 
ed not  to  sustain  him. 

tn  1835.,  the  Old  School  had  a  majority.  That  Assem- 
bly passed  sentence  of  condemnation  on  certain  doc- 
trines which  were  never  held  in  ihe  Presbyterian  church. 
It  is  true,  they  said  the  errors  were  prevalent  among  the 
New  School.  But  such  statements  were  made  by  Old 
School  men,  who  had  their  purposes  to  accomplish.  In 
the  Act  and  Testimony,  and  similar  productions,  such 
sweeping,  unguarded  assertions  were  made,  as  were  well 
calculated  to  destroy  confidence,  not  only  in  the  docu- 
ments, but  in  the  veracity  of  the  authors  themselves.  This 
opinion  was  entertained  and  politely  expressed  by  the 
Princeton  Professors,  in  reference  to  the  writer  of  the  Act 
and  Testimony,  the  Rev.  R.  J.  Breckinridge.  Thev 
say  :  "In  concluding  our  remarks  on  this  defence  of  the 
Act  and  Testimony,  there  are  a  iew  supplementary  re- 
marks which  we  deem  it  expedient  to  make.  In  the  first 
place,  there  are  many  of  the  assertions  of  the  writer 
which  appear  to  us  very  inaccurate  as  to  matters  of  fact ; 
many  of  his  assumptions  altogether  unauthorized."  See 
Western  Luminary,  March  4,  1835. 

If  therefore,  the  Princeton  Fathers — decided  Old  School 
men-^could  charge  Mr.  Breckinridge,  the  great  leader  of 
12 


134 

the  Reform  unity,  with  making  "assertions"  winch  were 
'•very  inaccurate  as  to  matters  of  fact,"  welt  might  the 
public  mind  be  alow  in  g'ving  credence  to  all  he  has  said 
in  the  Act  and  Testimony.,  Old  School  Conventions  and 
0  lie  where. 

About  this  time  prosecutions  were  commenced  against 
two  prominent  New  School  men — Dr.  Beecher  and  Mr. 
l>arncs.  The  avowed  design  was  to  bring  out  the  decision 
of  the  General  Assembly  on  the  contested  po'nts.  See  Dr. 
.iunkin's  first  letlcr  to  Mr.  Barnes.     Trial,  Appendix,  p.  4. 

The  charges  relat-ed  suljstantially  to  the  same  views. 
The  Old  School  expected  a  majorit)'  in  1836,  and  that  both 
tliese  men  would  be  before  that  Assembly  for  trial.  They 
calculated,  t'lat  their  sentiments  would  be  condemned, 
and  these  men.  as  the  representatives  of  their  party  would 
be  rejected  ;  and  that  thus  they  would  drive  out  the  New 
School,  or  force  them  into  measures.  These  prosecutions 
were  indeed  regarded  by  the  New  School  not  only  as  a 
conspiracy  against  the  happiness  and  reputation  of  Dr. 
Beecher  and  Mf.  Barnes  as  indiciduah,  but  as  the  repre- 
.sentatives,  as  the  Old  School  would  have  it,  of  the  New 
School  party. 

The  results,  h-Qwever.  were  according  to  righteousness. 
Jn  the  case  of  Dr.  Beecher,  the  prosecution  was  withdrawn 
by  Dr.  Wilson,  the  Prosecutor,  because  of  the  hopeless- 
ness of  success.  He  had  before  been  acquitted  by  his 
fresl)ytery  and  Synod,  and  to  use  Dr.  Wilson's  own  words, 
of  even  "the  suspicion  of  unsoundness  in  the  faith."  . 

Mr.  Barnes  was  acquitted  by  his  own  Presbytery;  con- 
demned by  the  Synod;  but  after  a  full  and  patient  hear- 
ing, was  triumphantly  acquitted  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly. 

According  to  Presbyterianism,  this  ou^ht  to  have  been 
an  end  of  the  matter.  This  was  the  result  to  which  the 
prosecutors  wished  to  arrive — in  the  language  of  Dr.  Jun- 
icin,  "their  final  adjustment  by  the  proper  judicatoi'ies  of 
ihe  church."  And  when  this  result  was  arrived  at,  Pres- 
byterianism, ordination  vows,  a;id  religion  demanded  of 
the  Old  School  acquiescence.  Or,  if  they  felt  that  they 
could  not  conscientiously  do  this,  it  was  their  duty  peace- 
ably to  withdraw  from  the  church.  But  neither  was 
flone.     The   p^irty    went   into  a  secret  meetinsr;  a  conv 


135 

niiuec  was  appointed.  Tliat  conimiuee  sonl  out  the  Se- 
cret Circular,  and  afterwards  an  Address,  urging  lliaf 
these  men,  the  majorily,   "must  be  separated  frtm  us." 

In  1837,  in  the  Old  School  Conveniion,  the  more  cau- 
tious harped  much  upon  doctrines,  as  if  they  cared  nut 
about  majority  or  power.  But  a  niaa  migltt  have  an  ob- 
ject ill  view,  and  from  iiis  declarations  at  the  time,  you 
might  not  see  it.  A  Presbyterian  eldei*  oace  was  tried  by 
his  session  for  cheating  liis  neighbor  in  a  horse-swop, 
Iiis  horse  being  diseased.  'I'he  injured  party  urged,  lljut 
the  elder  had  as-sured  liim,.  that  his  lioi-so  was  sound.  The 
elder  here  manifested  less  caution  than  in  making  the 
trade,  for  he  immediately  contradicted  the  statement,  ad- 
ding "1  was  vevy  guarded  in  my  e.\pressions." 

Mr.  R.  J.  Breckinridge  was  both  cautious  and  bold. 
In  the  Convention  he  was  at  times  "  very  guarded"  in  his 
expressions.  He  would  then  declarer  "  This  is  a  great 
controversy  in  which  we  are  engrossed  about  dccirine  and 
order.'"  But  in  the  negociaiions  of  the  committee  of  tea 
he  was  less  guarded.  And  in  this  unguarded  moment,  hs 
seemed  to  forget  doctrine  and  order  and  to  be  thinking  of 
power  and  predominance.  In  that  committee  he  declared 
that:  "  If  the  New  Sciiool  did  not  accept  the  propositions' 
of  the  Old  School,  he  would  tiie  next  day,  in  the  General' 
Assembly,  move  to  excind  a  sufficient  liumber  of  Synods 
from  the  General  Assembly,  to  secure  thereafter,  in  that 
bodv.  the  preponderance  of  the  Old  School."  McElroy, 
p.  93. 

A  similar  declaration  lie  made,  in  an  unguarded  mo- 
ment, on  the  floor  of  the  General  Assembly. 

The  statements  of  Mr.  Breckimidgc  are  quoted,  and 
regarded  ae  important,  because  he  was  a  master-spirit  in 
tijose  transactions — a  gentleman  whose  commanding  pow- 
ers wore  not  sufficiently  chasteiied  by  age  and  expertence, 
and  whose  ecclesiastical  course  would  suggest,  that  he  had 
bten  an  admirer  of  the  saying  of  Euripides  :  "  Nam  si 
violandum  est  jus,  regnandi  gratia  violandurn  est  ;  aliias 
rebus  pictatem  colas. " 

111  the  Memorial  of  the  Convention  of  1837,  presented 
to  ih-^  Assembly,  ^^  doctrinal  errors''  occupied  a  conspicu- 
ous place*     Sixteen  errors  were  specitled   which  the  Oid 


136 

Scriool  said  were  •'  widely  disseminated  in  the  Presbyterian 
church." 

This  part  of  the  Memorial  was  adopted  by  the  Assem- 
bly. 

A  New  School  member  oflered  as  an  amendment  the 
condemnation  of  the  four  following  errors,  viz  : 

•'  1.  That  m:in  has  no  ability  of  any  kind  to  obey  God's 
commands  or  do  his  duty  ;  2.  'J'hat  ability  is  not  neces- 
sary to  constitute  oLiigation  :  3.  That  God  may  justly 
command  what  man  has  no  ability  to  perform,  and  justly 
condemn  him  for  the  non-performance  :  4.  That  all  the 
powers  of  man  to  perform  the  duty  required  of  him  have 
been  destroyed  by  the  full." 

This  amendnient  struck  at  some  of  the  ei'fors  of  the 
Old  School,  and  of  course,  was  not  adopted. 

It  will  from  this  be  seen,  that  the  New  School  thought 
the  Old  School  in  error.  This  doctrine  inculcated  among 
the  Old  School,  that  ability  is  not  necessary  to  constitute 
ohligalion,  in  connection  with  another  of  similar  stamp, 
ihat  for  a  large  portiori  of  the  human  race  no  salvation 
has  been  proinded,  has  been  considered  highly  Antinomi- 
an.  The  New  School,  as  a  body,  steadily  opposed  such 
sentiments,  and  thought  their  opposition  was  based  upon 
the  word  of  God,  as  well  as  the  Confession  of  Faith.  And 
Though  they  differed  with  their  Old  School  brethren  on 
such  points,  yet  they  urged,  that  such  differences  had  al- 
ways been  tolerated  in  the  church,  and  were  not  disposed 
to  excind  their  erring  brethren. 

That  the  doctrines  of  the  Old  School  are  tending  to  Ail- 
linomianism,  is  acknowledged  by  persons  in  their  own 
connection.  A  gentleman  in  the  South,  in  connection 
with  the  Old  School,  notices  the  "  Causes  of  religious  de- 
clension at  the  South."  Among  the  causes  he  alludes  to 
doctrines.  He  says  :  "A  persuasion  that  the  mode  of 
preaching  at  the  North  savors  of  Pelagianism  and  fanati- 
cism, has  driven  many  at  the  South  to  verge  toward  an  op- 
posite extreme..  While  the  exaltation  of  human  means  has 
been  regarded  a&  a  capital  part  of  the  heresies  of  the 
North,  some  preachersat  the  South  have  carried  their  no- 
i-jons  of  dependence  so  far  as,  to  a  common  mind,  seems  to 
Biiter  closely  upon  the  borders  of  fatalism.     This  tenden- 


cy  to  Antinominnism  lias.ioiilmi  a  short  space,  considerahip 
increased.  Many  of  their  preachers  are  believers  and  ad- 
vocates for  ttie  doctrine  of  |)articu!ar  rcdeinption,  tlic  ob-^ 
vious  inference  from  which  is,  that  for  a  large  poriion  of 
the  human  race  no  salvMion  has  been  2:rovidcd."  See 
Christian  Observer,  July  10,  1841. 

Tiiis  writer  says,"  many  of  the  preachers"  hold- these 
sentiments.  In  justice  to  many  others,  it  onglit  to  be  sta- 
ted that  all  their  pi'eachers  do  not  believe  or  leach  thes^ 
doctrines.  And  in  reference  to  the  memhers  of  the  Old 
School  party,  it  may  be  safety  asserted,  that  the  majority 
of  them  concur  with  the  Constilulional  party  in  rejecting; 
these  Antinomian  tenets. 

On-the  subject  of  doctrinal  differences  between  the  two 
))ariies,  the  New  School  challenged  investigation  in  the 
General  Assembly.  But  it  was  cut  off  by  the  call  for  the 
previous  question,  so  "  as  to  prevent  all  discussion."  Seo 
Protest  of, the  I\Iinority. 

The  New  School  portion  of  the  Assembly  being  denit;i'. 
investigation,  and  not  holding  the  errors  charged  upoi; 
them,  nor  concuring  with  the  Old  School  in  their  views 
of  imputation,  man's  inability,  the  extent  of  the  atone- 
ment, &c.  protested  against  the  action  of  the  Assembly, 
and  in  their  protest,  they  placed  the  "true  ddclr'ines"  as 
held  by  them,  in  contrast  with  the  errors  charged  upon 
them  by  the  Old  School.  Tliis  part  of  the  protest,  it; 
justice  to  both  parties,  ought  to  be  given.   It  is  as  follows  : 


FIKST  EKKOR.  TRUE   DOCTKIXE. 

"That   God   would    have   pre-  God  permitted  the  introduction 

vented  the  existence  of  sin  in  our  of  sin,  not  liecause  he  was  unahl. 

world,  but  was  not  able,  without  to  prevent  it,  consistently  with  ih<; 

destroying   the   moral   agency   of  moral  freedom  of  his  creatures,  hnt 

man;  or  lor  ought   tl.at  appears  in  for  wise   and  benevolent    reasons, 

the  bible  to  the  contrary,  sin  is  in-  which  he  has  not  revealed, 
eidental  to  any  wise  moral  sys- 
tem." 

SECOND   ERROR.  ^  TRUE    DOCTRINE. 

"  That  election  to  eternal  life  is  Election  to  eternal  life  is  not 
founded  on  a  foresight  of  faith  and  founded  on  a  foresight  of  faith  and 
obedience."  obedience,  but  is  a  sovereign  act  of 

God's  mercy,  whereby,  according 
to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will,  he 
has  chosen  some  to  salvation.;. 
"  yet  so  as  thereby  neither  is  vio-- 
ience  otlered  to-  the  will  of  tbe- 


188 


TKIftn   EHKOR. 

'•That  we  have  no  more  to  do 
"Miththe  first  sin  of  Adain,  tlian 
wyth  llie  sins  ol  any  other  parent." 


creature,  nor  ib  the  liberty  or  con.- 
tingency  of  second  causes  taken 
away,  but  rather  established,"  nor 
does  this  gracious  purpose  ever. 
take  efi'ect  independently  of  faith 
and  a  holy  lile. 

TRUE  DOCTRINE. 

By  a  divine  constitution,  Adam 
was  so  the  head  and  representative 
of  the  race,  that,  as  a  consequence 
of  his  transgression,  all  mankind 
became  morally  corrupt  and  liable 
todeath  temporal  and  eternal. 


FOURTH   ERROR. 

"  Thai  infants  come  into  the 
world  as  free  from  moral  deiile- 
nviut,  Qs  was  Adam,  when  he  was 
created." 


TRUE   DOCTRINE. 

Adam  was  created  in  the  image 
of  God,  endowed  with  knowledge, 
righteousnets,  and  true  holiness. 
Inliants  come  into  the  world  not 
only  dei^titute  of  these,  but  with  a 
nature  inclined  to  evil  and  only 
evil. 


FIFTH    ERROR. 

"That  infants  sustain  the  same 
rolntion  to  the  moral  government 
of  God,  in  this  world,  as  brute  an- 
imals, and  that  their  sufferings  and 
death  are  to  be  accounted  for  on 
the  same  principles  as  thoi;e  of 
lirutes,  and  not  by  any  means  lo 
be  considered  as  penal." 


TRUE    DOCTRINE. 

Brute  animals  sustain  no  such 
relation  to  the  moral  government 
of  God,  as  docs  the  human  family. 
Infants  are  a  part  of  the  human 
family  ;  and  their  sufTi  rings  and 
death  are  to  be  accounted  for  on 
the  ground  of  their  being  involved 
in  the  general  moral  ruin  of  the 
race,  induced  by  the  apostacy. 

TRUE   DOCTRINE. 

Original  sin  is  a  natural  bias  to 
evil,  resulting  from  the  first  apos- 
tacy,  leading  invariably  and  cer- 
tainly to  actual  transgression. 
And  all  infants,  as  well  as  adults, 
in  order  to  be  saved,  need  redemp- 
tion by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and 
regeneration  by  the  Holy  Ghost..- 


SIXTH   ERROR. 

"  That  there  is  no  other  original 
jin  than  the  fact  that  all  the  pos- 
terity of  Adam,  though  by  nature 
innocent,  will  always  I'egin  to  sin, 
when  they  begm  to  exercise  mor- 
al agency  ;  that  original  sin  does 
not  include  a  sinful  bias  of  the 
human  mind,  and  a  just  e.xposure 
to  penal  sufferings,  and  that  there 
is  no  evidence  in  Scripture,  that  , 
infants,  in  order  to  salvation,  do  • 
need  redemption  by  the  blood  of 
Christ,  and  regeneration  by  the 
Holy  Ghost."' 

SEVENTH   ERROR.  T SITE    DOCTRINE. 

"  That  the  doctrine  of  imputa-        The  sin  of  Adam  is  not  imputed  ' 

tion,  whether  of  the  guilt  of  Ad-  to    his  posterity  in   the  sense  of  a 

am's  sin  or  of  the  righteousness. of  literal  transfer  of  personal  qualities, 

Christ,  has  no  foundation  in  the  acts  and  demerits ;  hut  by  reason 

word  of  God,  is  both  unjust  and  of  the  sin"  of  Adam,  in  his  peculiar 

absurd."  relation,  the  race  areireated,  as  if- 


139 


they  had  sinned.  Nor  is  the  right- 
eonsiiess  of  Christ  imputed  to  his 
people,  in  the  sense  ot  a  literal 
transfer  of  personal  qualities,  acts, 
or  merits;  but  by  reason  of  his 
righteousness,  in  his  peculiar  rela- 
tion, they  are  treated  as  if  il;ey 
were  righteous. 


EIGHTH    EltROR.  TRUE   DOCTRINE. 

'•That  the  suflerings  and  death  The  sufferings    and    death  of 

of  Christ  were  not  truly  vicarious  Christ   were  not  symbolical,  gov- 

and  penal,  but  symbolical,  govern-  ernmental,   and  instructive  only, 


mental .  and  instructive  only. 


but  were  truly  vicarious,  i.  e.  a  sub- 
stitute for  the  punishment  due  to 
transgressors.  And,  while  Christ 
did  not  suiTer  the  literal  penalty  of 
the  law,  involving  remorse  of  con- 
science, and  the  pains  of  liell,l;e  did 
offer  a  sacrifice,  which  infinite  wis- 
dom saw  to  be  a  full  ecjuivaient. 
And  by  virtue  of  this  atonement, 
overtures  of  mercy  are  sincerely 
made  to  the  race,and  salvation  se- 
cured  to  all  who  believe. 


NINTH   ERKOK. 

"That  the  impenitent  sinner  is 
by  nature,  and  independently  of 
the  renewing  influence,  or  almigh- 
ty energy  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  full 
possession  of  all  the  ability  neces- 
sary to  a  lull  compliance  with  all 
the  commands  of  God." 


TRUE   DOCTRINE 

While  sinneishave  all  the  facul- 
ties  necessary  to  a  perfect  moral  a- 
gency,  and  a  just  accountability, 
such  is  their  love  of  sin  and  oppo- 
sition to  CTod  and  hislaw,  that,  in- 
dependently of  the  renewing  influ- 
ence of  almighty  energy  of  the  Ho- 
ly Spirit,  they  never  will  comply 
w-ith  the  commands  of  God. 


TENTH     ERROR. 

"That  Christ  does  not  intercede 
for  the  elect  until  after  their  re- 
generation." 


TRUE    rOCTRINE. 

The  intercession  of  Christ  for 
the  elect  is  previous  as  well  as  sub- 
sequent to  their  regeneration,  as ^ 
appears  from  the  following  Scrip- 
ture,viz.:  ''I  pray  not  for  the  world, 
but  for  them  that  thou  hast  given 
me,  for  they  are  thine  :  neither 
pray  I  for  these  alone  but  for  them 
also,  which  shall  believe  on  me 
through  thy  word." 


ELEVENTH  ERROR. 

"That  saving  faith  is  not  an  ef- 
fect of  the  operation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  but  a  mere  rational  belief  of 
the  truth,  or  assent  to  the  word  of 
God," 


TRUE    DOCTRINE. 

Saving  faith  is  an  intelligent  and 
cordial  assent  to  the  testimony  of 
God  concerning  his  Son,  implying 
reliance  on  Christ  alone  for  pardon 
and  eternal  life  ;  and  in  all  casea  - 


IW 


it  is  an  effect  of  the  special  opera- 
tions of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

TtVELFTH   ERROR.  TRfE  POCTRJXE. 

"That  regeneration  is  the  act  of        Engeneration is  a  ri'dica!  change 
t'ne  sinner  himself,  and  that  it  con-     of  the  haart,  produced  by  the  spe- 
3ists  in  the  chanore  of  his  covern-     ciai  operations  of  the  fioiy  8pi»it, 
i ng purpose  which  he  liimself  must     "dett-rmining   the  sinner   to  that 
produce,  ariil  which  is  the  result,     which  is  good,"  andis  in  all  casee 
not  of  any  direct   influence  of  the     instautatieous. 
Holy  Spirit  on  the  heart, -but  chief- 
ly of  a  persuasive  exhibition  of  the 
truth,  analagoirs  to  the  iiifluciice, 
which  one  man   exerts  over   the 
mind  of  another;  or   that  regen- 
eration   is  not  an   instantaneous 
ac!,  but  a  progressive  work..'' 


TniRTEENTII  ERSOR. 

"Tliat  God  has  done  all  that  he 
ca7t  do  for  the  salvation  of  all  men, 
and;that  rnan  himsslf  must  do  the 

rest." 


TRUE   DOCTRIXE. 

While  repentance  for  sin  and 
faith  in  Clirist  are  indispensable 
to  salvation,  all  who  are  saved 
are  indebted  from  the  first  to  the 
last  to  the  grace  and  sp-rit  of  God. 
And  the  reason-  that  <Jod  does  not" 
save  all,  is  not  that  he  .wants  the 
power  to  do  it,  but  that  in  his  wis- 
dom he  does  not  see  fit  to  exert 
that  power  further  than  he  actu- 
ally does. 


irOTrRTEENTH    ERROR. 

"That  God  cannot  exert  such 
influence  on  the  minds  of  men,  as 
shall  make  it  certain,  that  they 
will  choose  and  act  in  a  particular 
manner,  witiiout  impairing  their 
moral  agency." 


trit;  nocTRixE. 
While  the  liberty  of  the  will  is 
not  impaired,  nor  the  established 
connexion  between  means  and  end 
broken  by  any  action  of  God  on 
the  mind,  he  can  influence  it  aci 
cordinir  to  his  pleasure,  and  does 
ellcctuiUy  determine'  it  to  good  in 
all  cases  of  true  conversion. 


FIFTEENTH   ERrtOR.  TRUE   DOCTR'.NE. 

"That  the  righteousnes  of  Christ  AH  belicversarejustitied,  not  on 
is  not  the  sole  ground  of  the  sin-  the  ground  of  personal  merit,  hut 
ner's  acceptance  with  God;  and  solely  on  the  ground  of  the  obedi-^ 
that  in  no  sense  does  the  righteous-  ence  and  deatn,  or,  in  other  words, 
ne«s  of  Christ  become  ours.'  the  righteousness  of  Christ.    And 

while  that  righteousness  does  not 
become,  theirs,  in  the  sense  of  a 
literal  transfer  ol  personal  quali-^ 
itiea  and  merit  ;  yet  from  respect 
to  it,  God  can,  and  does  treat  them 
as  if  they  were  righteous. 


SIXTEENTH   ERROR. 

"That  the  reason  why  some  dif- 


TRUE  DCCTKINE. 

While  all  such  as  reject  the  Gos- 


1-41 


fcr  fi-om  oilicrs  in  regard  to  their  pel  of  Christ,  do  it,  not  by  coercion 
reception  of  the  Gospel,  is  that  but  freely— and  ail  who  embrace 
ihey  make  themselves  to  ciifitr  "        it,  do  it  not  by  coercion  but  freely — 

the  reason  M-hy  some  difl'er  from 
others  is,  God  has  made  them  to 
differ." 

In  ihe  above  it  will  be  seen,tliat  what-  is  headed  *•  er- 
ror," is  what  the  Old  School  charge  upon  the  New  School  ; 
what  IS  iieaded  "  true  doctrine,"  is  what  the  New  School 
really  hold  on  that  point. 

Here  then  was  a  denial,  by  the  representatives  of  the 
New  School  portion  of  the  church,  of  the  errors  charged 
upon  them,  and-  an  avowal  of  their  "real  sentiments." 
With  them5.it  might  have  been  expected  the  great  mass  of 
the  Presbyterian  church  would  have  been  satisfied.  But 
strange  as  it  may  appear,  the  Old  School  portion  of  the- 
Assembly  pretended  to  see  great  heresy  in  the  •'  True  Doc- 
trines" of  the  New  School.  They  even  enjoined  it  upon 
their  Presbyteries  to  try  the  signers  of  the  "  True  Doc- 
trines" for  heresy,  as  will  appear  from  the  following  res- 
olution of  the  Assembly,  viz  : 

^^' Resolved,  That  duly  certified  copies  of  this  paper  be 
sent  to  the  respective  Presbyteries  to  which  the  signers  of 
the  protest  belong,  calling  tneir  attention  to  the  develop- 
ments of  theological  views  contained  in  it,  enjoining  on 
them  to  enquire  into  the  soundness  of  the  faith  of  those, 
who  have  ventured  to  make  so  strange  avowals  as  some  of 
these  are." 

In  the  controversy  about  doctrine,  the  Old  School  re- 
sorted to  much  unfairness,  to  make  an  impression  unfa- 
vorable to  Constitutional  Prcsbyterjans.  They  imputed  to 
the  New  School  all  the  sinsand  errors  of  New  Haven  and 
Oberlin — Dr.  Taylor  and  Mr.  Finney — as  if  these  institu- 
tions or  ministers  had  any  connection  with  the  Presbyteri- 
an Chuich. 

The  Old  School  have  also  exhibited  much  inconsistency. 
One  instance  will  suffice.  The  Editor  of  the  Charleston 
Observer  is  an  Old  School  man.  But  before  the  division 
of  the  Assembly  in  1838,  he  was  willing,  to  do  the  New. 
School  justice.  Before  the  division  he  had  no  party  to 
serve,  whether  right  or  wrong.  He  then  could  say  of 
Charleston  Union  Presbytery,  the  large  majority  of  which 


142 

was  called  New  School:  "  There  is  no  discrepancy  in  ihis 
Presbytery  on  questions  of  doctrine.''  But  since  the  di- 
vision, he  calls  the  mioisiers  of  Charleston  Union  Presby- 
tery,  "  the    Pelagians  of  Charleston." 

The  same  Editor,  before  the  division,  did  not  consider 
Dr.  Beman,  Mr.  Barnes  and  other  prominent  Now  School 
men  heretical.  After  quoting  largely  from  their  writings, 
he  says  positively  :  "  If  there  be  heresy  in  them,  we  are 
not  sufficiently  sagacious  to  discern  it."  But  now  the 
church  is  divided,  and  the  interests  of  the  other  party  de- 
mand that  the  New  School  be  loaded  and  sunk  with  re- 
proaches. And  now  this  Editor  can  refer  to  ihe  same 
writings  to  prove  that  the  New  School  are  "  Pelagians," 
and  teach  "  another  Gospel."  Upon  what  principles  tiie 
Editors  of  Old  School  papers  would  justify  such  unfair- 
ness and  inconsistency,  is  not  for  us  to  say. 

in  this  controversy,  the  Old  School  have  charged  upon 
the  New  School  opinions  which  they  have  uniformly  de- 
nied. To  this  the  Old  School  have  said:  "  If  the  body  of 
the  New  School  are  not  in  error,  some  of  their  prominent 
men  are."  They  then  point  to  Mr.  Barnes.  But  Mr» 
Barnes  was  acquitted  before  the  division  of  the  church  ; 
and  if  the  New  School  are  chargeable  with  heresy  for 
voting,  in  1830,  for  the  restoration  of  Mr.  Barnes,  so  are 
some  of  the  most  prominent  Old  School  men,  as  Dr.  Miller 
and  others. 

In  this  controversy,  the  Nev/  School  always  professed 
their  readiness  for  investigation  or  trial.  And  while  one 
party  charged  the  other  with  holding  sentiments  tending: 
to  Arminiaiiism  and  Pelagianisni,  they  in  tuin  were  be- 
lieved to  hold  sentiments  tending  to  Antinomianism.  ^Vhen 
the  errors,  such  as  are  contained  in  the  sixteen  specifica- 
tions were  stated,  the  New  School  party  said — prove  them 
upon  any  one  and  we  will  help  you  in  turning  him  out. 
But  the  proof  was  lacking. 

Indeed,  it  was  found  almost  impossible  to  bring  the  Old 
School  up  to  the  real  points  of  difier-ence..  In  the  Assem- 
bly of  1837,  when  the  subject,  of  ''  Doctrinal  Errors" 
came  up,  all  investigation  was  cut  off  by  the  call  for  the 
previous  question.  Yet  the  New  School,  in  their  protest, 
were  enabled  indirectly  to  bring  the  Old  School  to  them. 
And  if  any  one  should  b,e  curious  on    the    subject  of  the 


143 

real  differences  between  the  Schools,  he  may  form  a  prett}' 
correct  opinion  from  the  "  True  Doctrines"  of  the  New- 
School,  and  the  action  of  the  Old  School  in  reference  to 
them.  The  New  School,  in  the  Assembfy,  said,  these  are 
our  "  real  sentiments."  And  in  the  Auburn  Convention, 
they  said  :  "  This  Convention  cordially  disapprove  and 
cordemn  the  list  of  errors  condemned  by  the  late  Assem- 
bly, and  adopt,  as  the  expression  of  their  own  sentiments, 
and  as  they  believe  the  prevalent  sentiments  of  the  church- 
es in  these  Synods  on  the  points  in  question,  the  list  of 
*  true  doctrines'  adopted  by  the  minority  of  said  Assembly 
in  their  protest  on  this  subject.''  See  New  York  Obsery- 
er,  October  7,  1837. 

The  Old  School,  however,  regarded  the  "  True  Doc- 
trines" as  heresy,  and  enjoined  it  upon  their  Presbyteries 
to  try  the  signers.  On  these  points,  therefore,  the  parties 
were  fairly  at  issue.  Thus  the  real  points  of  diffijrence 
wore  reached  at  last,  so  far  as  the  New  School  were 
concerned.  And  had  the  Old  School  come  out  and  avow- 
ed their  real  sentiments — limited  atonement,  &c.  their 
Presbyteries  would  have  had  an  opportunity  of  deciding 
•which  party  was  the  most  orthodox. 

Here  the  controversy  about  doctrine  mainly  ceased. 
'Not  a  single  Presbytery  obeyed  the  injunction  of  the  Old 
School,  in  trying  llie  signers  of  the  "  True  Doctrines"  for 
heresy.  This  resolution  savored  so  much  of  infatuation, 
that  the  Old  School  soon  became  ashamed  of  it  ;  and  no 
Assembly  since  seems  to  have  inquired  whether  its  injunc- 
tion has  been  complied  with  or  not. 

Notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  said,  the  impression 
has  sometimes  been  made,  that  Constitutional  Presbyteri- 
ans have  rejected  the  Confession  of  Faith.  In  reply  to 
this,  it  is  necessary  only  to  quote  one  or  two  official  de- 
clarations of  the  Constitutional  Assembly.  During  their 
session  in  1838,  the  following  resolution  was  adopted 
unanimously  : 

"  Th.at  it  be,  and  hereby  is  recommended  to  all  the 
Presbyteries  to  take  sj)ecial  pains  to  have  tho  book  con- 
taining  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Form  of  Government 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States  of  Ameri- 
ca more  generally  circulated  among  the  churches  undex 
-their  care." 


144 

The  same  Assembly,  io  their  Pastoral  Lclter,  say;  "'We 
love  and  honor  the  Confession  of  Failh  of  the  Presbyteri- 
an Church,  as  containing  more  well  defined,  fundamental 
truth,  with  less  defects  than  appertains  to  any  other  hu- 
man formula  of  doctrine,  and  us  calculated  to  hold  in  in- 
telligent concord  a  greater  number  of  sanctified  minds,  than 
any  which  could  now  be  formed,  and  we  disclaim  all  de- 
sign, past,  present  and  future,  to  change  it." 

Whether  or  not  all  the  noise  the  Old  School  made  about 
doclri/ie,.\vas  for  the  sake  of  doctrine,  or  to  alarm  the 
■churches  for  the  attainment  of  ol/:er  ohjecls.  must  be  left 
■to  tlie  impartial  and  to  posterity  to  decidQo 


1  i5  ,) 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

THE  AUBURN  COxWENTION. 


After  che  close  of  the  As'iembly  of  1837,  it  was  sooa 
ascertained,  that  tlie  excinded  Synods  and  other  large 
portions  of  the  church,  regarded  the  measures  of  that  As- 
sembly as  rex^olulionai'y  and  unconstitutional ,  and  design- 
ed to  divide  the  church ;  or  in  the  language  of  the  Keform 
Aasembty  of  1838,  "<o  affect  this  seq}aration." 

The  church  was,  by  these  reforming  and  revolutionary 
measures,  thrown  into  a  deep  state  of  alarm  and  confusion. 
The  friends  of  Constitutional  liberty  were  bewildered. 
As  was  to  be  expected,  they  could  not  entirely  agree 
among  themselves,  as  to  what  ought  to  be  done  in  the  yu- 
expected  and  fearful  crisis.  They  aaw  that  the  Reform- 
ers, taking  advantage  of  an  accidental  majority,  had  laiJ 
tiieir  plans  to  disfranchise  the  party  which  had  hitherto 
been  the  mijority.  Some,  seeing  that  the  Reformers  had 
taken  advantage  of  them  in  the  mere  assumption  of  pow- 
er, were  for  hanging  on  to  the  party,  hoping  they 
would  see  their  error.  Some  were  for  standing  aloof  froi!! 
the  contending  parties.  Some  were  for  planting  them- 
selves upon  the  constitution,  and  meeting  the  crisis  witli 
iirmness.     The  great  portion  were  of  the  latter  class. 

The  fxrjst  movement  towards  concert  of  action  was  the 
Convention  which  met  at  Auburn,  in  the  State  of  New 
York,  on  the  17th  of  August,  1837.  There  were  in  at- 
tendance nearly  two  hundred  ministers  and  elders.  Tlie 
reform  measures  were  fully  discussed.  In  reference 
to  the  excision,  the   following  resolution  was  passed,  vi.:;  : 

^''Resolved,  That   in   the   judgment  of  this    Convention, 
the  acts  of  the  last  General  Assembly,  declaring  the  Svn-    ^^!jfc* 
ods   of  Western  Reserve,    Utica,   Geneva,  and  Gencss'ee/''"''-^  * 
not  to  be  constitutional  parts  of  the  Prrcabyteriuri  Churcfc       -"V  -■' 
13 


14G 

on  the  grnund  that  their  connexion  was  depenJenl  on  the 
Plan  of  Union  of  1801,  and  upon  charges  vague  and  un- 
S'Uppor.ted,  were  unconstitutional,  and  therefore  in  the 
opinion  of  thisX'oiave-ntion,  null  and  void.*' 

In  support  of  .tlic  foregoing  resolution  many  reasons 
weie  assign  id.. 

A  -few  extracts  will  exiiibit  the-  attitude  of  that  body. 
They  say  :  "The  act  complained  of  has,  without  iiear- 
ing  and  without  trial,  without  charges  even,  deprived  a 
v;ist  iiuinber  of  Presbyterian  members  of  all  connexion 
with  that  church,  aud  declares  thorn  "ceitlier  in  form  nor 
in  fact"  members  thereof. 

''The  constitution  has  made  ample  provisions  for  the 
redress  of  all  grievances  which  it  was  supposed  would 
arise  in  the  church;  and  especially  for  the  correction  of 
nny  error  in  doctrine  or  irregularily  in  practice,  whether 
existing  in  the  individual  members  or  in  the  bodies  organi- 
i'.'d  under  the  constitution.  The  mode  of  doing  this  is 
fiiily  and  clearly  defined  in  that  instrument.  An  attempt, 
th.en,  to  correct  and  alleged  error  or  irregularity  in  any 
otlicr  mode  than  that  pointed  out  by  the  constitution  or 
compnct  into  which  all  had  entered,  is  usurpalvm ;  if 
it  produce  oppression,  it  is  tyranny;  in  its  character,  and 
tendency  it  is  and  must  inevitably  be  subversive  of  all 
good  and  righteous  govei'nmeni  and  order ;  and  may 
properly  be  cls.ssed  with  .those  acts  of  lawless  violence  ra- 
cenllv  ,so  disgracefully  frequrjnt  in  our  country,  and  whose 
juslifica.tiga  is  aitemptcd  alone  upon  the  plea  of  "the  ne- 
cessity of  tlie  ,cas»,"  or  the  still  more  unrighteous  plea 
tl.at  '■'ike  end  juslijies  (he  means.''' 

"In  a  goverinnent  of  laws,  «(?  necessity  can  ever  exist 
for  trampling  those  laws  in  the  dust,  and  disregarding  their 
rtc,'n rejnents.  If  such  acts  be  done,  they  are  either  re,- 
boiiion  or  rovolutiou  or  both."  See  New  York  Observer, 
October  7,  1S37. 

Tlier.e  is  one  poiijt  made  clear  by  the  Auburn  Conven- 
tion, which  goes  to  shew,  that  in  reference  to  the  three 
Synods  in  New  York,  the  General  Assembly  based  their 
excision  upon  falsely  assumed  facts.  The.excinding  reso- 
lu'ion  assumes,  that  these  Synods  ^^were  formed  and  attach- 
ed''' to  the  Assenibly  '^under  and  in  execution  of  ''  the 
Tian  of  Union  of  ISOl.    The  Convention,  in  denying  thiS; 


147 

say  :  ••The  whde  of  the  territory,  embracing  the  thrco' 
Synods  of  New  York,  came  into  connexion,  with  the  Pres- 
byierian  Church,  so  far  as  they  were  Congregationaiists, 
not  under  the  Flan  of  Union  of  1801,  but  under  a  plan 
of  union  and  correspondence  nxide  in  1807  between  iho 
Synod  of  Albany  on  tlic  one  part,  and  the  Nortliern  Asso- 
.ciated  Presbytery  and  the  Middle  Association'  on  the  otii-- 
er,  wliich  plan  was  subsequently  submitted  to  the  General 
Assembly  ;  and  by  them  considered,  sanctioned  and  ado[)t- 
ed  in  1808,  and  has  never  been  ohjected  to  or  abrogated." 

The  documents  on  this  subject  are  loo  lengthy  for  inser- 
tion here.  Let  the  reader,  if  he  would  be  more  fii!ly 
satisfied,  turn  to  the  New  York  Observer,  September  "-i, 
and  October  7,  1837. 

The  plan  was  regarded  as  a  special  compact  belwcoii 
the  Synod  of  Albany  and  the  Middle  Association.  By  it 
the  Middle  Association  became  a  constituent  part  of  the 
Synod  of  Albany,  and  the  ministers  and  delegates  of 
churches  belonging  to  the  Association  were,  admitted  into 
the  Synod  with  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  ministers 
and  elders  of  their  Presbyteries.  In  speaking,  therefore, 
of  the  churches  within  the  bounds  of  the  three  Synods, 
they  say  :  "Their  connexion  with  the  General  Assembly 
has  no  reference  to  the  Plan  of  Union  of  1801  ;  and  hence 
the  abrogation  of  that  plan  could  not,  in  the  slightest  de- 
gree, eftect  the  standing  of  these  churches,  or  destroy 
their  relation  to  the  General  Assem^bly." 

The  Assembly  might,  with  a.s  much  propriety,  havj 
abrogated  the  Adopting  Act  of  1729,  and  then  declared, 
that  in  consequence  of  that  abrogation,  the  three  Synol.H 
are  "out  of  the  ecclesiastical  connexion  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian church."  Or  admitting  the  plan  of  1801  to  be  im- 
constitutional,  they  might  as  well  have  declared,  tiiat  tna 
Synod  of  Philadelphia  is  "oat  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church." 

Therefore,  the  history  of  these  events  show,  that  these 
three  Synods  were  cut  off  for  a  reason  that  had  no  exist- 
ence in  fact.  But  the  advocates  of  excision,  when  re- 
minded of  this,  urged  that,  though  the  plan  of  1808  v.-as 
not  abrogated,  yet  it  was  of  the  same  character.  In  their 
answer  to  the  protest  of  the  excinded  they  say:  "The 
compact  of  the  Assembly   of  1808,  with  the  Synod  of  AL- 


148 

&nny,  in  refcr^iiCe  lo  the  Middle  Association,  is  as  uncon- 
viitjtional  as  the  Plan  cf  Uaion  of  1801."  But  admitting 
V.  was  as  unconstitutional,  it  was  not  abrogated,  and  tlie 
itircc  Synods  were  cut  off,  because  another  plan  was  abro- 
gated, with  which  they  had  no  more  connexion  than  with 
riie  plan  of  union  of  1691. 

Aft'-r  the  close  of  the  Auburn  Convention,  it  was  un- 
derstood ibat  the  Constituional  party  designed  4o  act  with 
11)0  Refornoers  in  the  Assembly  of  1838,  provided  the  or- 
ganisation of  a  General  Assembly  could  be  effected  by 
aidmitting  the  Commissioners  from  tlie  excinded  Synods. 

The  position  of  the  parties  was  such,  however,  that  very 
little  hope  could  be  indulged  that  they  could  longer  act 
togother.  The  Eeformers  seemed  to  rejoice  that  division 
had  commenced  and  would  be  carried  out.  Still  the 
friends  of  the  constitution  hoped,  that  if  the  two  parties 
could  not  act  together,  some  amicable  mode  of  division 
fould  be  devised  which  would  prevent  the  alienation  and 
bitterness  of  a  violent  dismemberment  of  the  body.  In 
tiiis  condition  things  remained  till  the  meeting  of  the  As- 
ajembly  of  1838o. 


(   i40    ) 


CHAPTER  XX. 


TflE  ASSEMBLY  OF  1838— THE  DIVISION  OF  THE  CHLRCIi 
—THE  TUMULT  IN  THE  ORGANIZATIOxM  OF  THE  AS- 
SEMBLY. 


A  few  days  before  the  m^eling  of  the  Assem'o'y,  iiY 
1838,  both  parties  met  in  Convention  in  Philadelphia.  The 
Constitutional  Convention  was  open  to  all  the  Commis- 
sioners to  the  General  Assembly,  and  was  attended  by  a 
few  of  the  other  party.  The  invitation  was  to  all,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  notice,  which  was  given  in  the  newspa- 
pers, signed  by  some  of  the  reformed  party.  Sec  McEi-' 
roy's  Refiort,  p.  91. 

The  other  Convention  was  a  i-'f'/y  organization.  '-The 
distinct  basis  on  which  the  mt;eting^  was  organized  way, 
that  its  members  were  prepared  to  sustain  the  general 
course  of  the  last  Assembly  in  the  reform  of  the  churcl).''^ 
'*It  was-  unanimously  resolved,  that  in  the  opinion  of  tne 
meeting,  the  reform  measures  of  the  last  Assembly  sliou'.d' 
be   fully  sustained."     See  W.  P.  Herald,  May  31,  1838. 

While  the  two  parties  were  in  Convea-tion,  the  Consti- 
tutional party  sent  the  following  overture  for  pacificaiior;. 
to  the  other  party  : 

^'■Resolved,  That  while  we  re<iard  with  deep  sorrow  tiic 
existing,  difliculties  m  our  beloved  churchy  we  wouid  fondly 
hope  that  there  are  no  insurmountable  obstacles  in  the  way 
of  averting  the  calamities  of  a  violent  dismemberment,  and 
of  securing  such  an  organization  as  miy  avoid  collisions, 
and  secure  the  blessings  of  a  perpetuated,.  hHrmoniou> 
■itction. 

'^Eesolved,  That  we  are  ready  to  co-operate  in  any  ef- 
forts which  are  constitutional,  and  which  shall  recognize 
iiie  regular  standing,  and  secure  the   rights  of  the  eutir-c' 


150 

church,. in-ciuding- these  portions  which  the  acts  of  ihe  last 
General  Assembly  were  intended  to  exclude." 

In  the  reply  to  the  foregoing  we  find  the  following: 

*'  Whereas,  the  resolutions  of  the  "meeting,"  while 
they  profess  a  readiness  .'to  co-operate,  in  any  efibrts 
for  pacification  which  are  constitutional,'  manifestly  pro- 
ceed on  the  erroneous  supposition,  that  the  acts  of  the 
General  Assembly  declaring  the  four  Synods  of  the 
\V(  stern  Reserve,  Utica,  Geneva  and  Genessi:e,  out  of  the 
occlesi  stical  connexion  of  our  church,  were  unconstitu- 
tional and  idvalid  ;.and  the  Coaventiori  cannot  for  a  mo- 
ment consent  to  consider  them  in  that  light,  there-fore,.. 

'■^Resolved,  unanimously,  tlud  the  Ccnvenlion  regard  the 
said  overture  ofihe  'meeting,' however  intended,  as  found- 
ed on  a  basis  which  is  wholly  inadujissible,  and  as  calcula- 
ted only  to  disturb  that  peace  of  our  churcli,  which  a  calna 
and  firm  adherence  to  those  constitutional,  just,  and  neces- 
s;iry  acts  of  the  last  General  Assembly  cin  alone,  by  tha 
blessing  of  Divine  Providence,  establish  and  secure."  See 
W-.  P.  Herald,  May  31,   1838. 

The  Constitutional  party  .declared  their  anxiety  for  pa- 
ifification,  if  any  plan  could  he  devised,  which  would  be 
"'consliiutional,'"  and  which  wftuld  ^'■secure  the  lights'^  of, 
the  f  xcinded. 

The  llerormcrs  affected  to  take  umbroge  at  the  word^ 
"const iiitlionaJ,^^  as  if  the  overture  had  pronounced  tlieir 
acts  unconstitutional.  But  any  one  can  see,  that  tlie  word,. 
''const it uiiuiial,^^  wixs  used  in  reference  tu  the  desired  plaa 
i.f  pacilicatiun.  This  excuse  was,  therefore,  mere  suh- 
terfugp.  Indeed,  it  seems  they  had  i.o  idea  of  '^paciji- 
calion,"  except  on  the  principles  of  passive-  obedience  and 
non-resistance;  for  they  had  already  "unanimously  re- 
Tiolved,  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  meeting, ///e  reform  meas- 
vres  of  ihe  last  AsiCmb/t/  should  be  fnllij  sustained.'^ 

Thus  the  pailies  stood  in  reference  to  each  other,  when 
the  General  xVsst"mhJy  met  in.  Philadelphia,  on  the  17th 
of  iMay,  1838.  Common  fame  had  excited  much  cariosity. 
as  to  the  scenes  which  were  to  be  acted  when  the  body- 
met.  The  Assembly  was  large  and  a  great  concourse  of 
i;.periators  were  pretent. 

The  Assembly  n-et  in  the  Seventh  Presbyterian  church... 
At  an  early  hcurj   the   Reformers  were  found  in.a  lodjrv 


151 

noar  the  pulpit,  and  the  two  doors  near  the  Modera!or''s: 
chair  locked.  The  Constitutional  party  generally  took 
their  seats  farther  hack  in  the  church. 

Dr.  Elliot,  the  Moderator  of  the  previous  year,  preached 
the  sermon.  At  the  close,  he  announced,  that  ihs  General 
Assembly  would  be  constituted  with  prayer.  After  prayer, 
and  before  the  Clerk  had  mr.de  his  report  on  the  roil.  Dr. 
Patton  offered  the  following  preamble  and   resolutions  : 

"  Uliereas,  the  General  Assembly  of  1837,  adopted 
certain  re;>olutions  intended  to  deprive  certain  Presbyteries 
of  the  right  to  be  represented  in  the  General  Assenjbly  : 
and  whereas,  the  more  fully  to  accomplish  their  purpose, 
the  said  Assembly  of  1837  did  require  atid  receive  from 
their  Clerks  a  pledge  or  promise,  that  they  would,  in 
inaking  out  the  roll  of  Commissioners  to  constiiute  the 
General  Assembly  of  l8Si,  omit  to  introduce  therein  the 
names  of  Commissioners  from  said  Presbyteries:  and 
whereas,  the  said  Clerks,  having  been  requested  by  Com- 
missioners from  the  said  Presbyteries  to  receive  their  com-- 
missions  and  enter  their  names  on  the  roll  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  1838,  now  about  to  be  organized,  have  re- 
fused (o  receive  and  enter  the  same.  Therefore, 

\,  Resolved,  That  such  attempts  on  the  part  of  the 
<Teneral  Assembly  of  1837,  and  ihcir  Clerks,  to  direct 
and  control  the  organizatioa  of  the  General  Assembly  of 
1838,  are  unconstitutional,  and  in  derogation  of  its  just 
rights  as  the  general  representative  judicatory  of  the 
whole  Presbyterian  church  in  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica. 

2.  Resolved,  That  the  General  Assembly  cannot  be 
•legally  constituted  except  by  admitting  to  sea's,  and  to 
equality  of  powers,  in  the  first  instance,  all  Commit^sion- 
ers,  who  present  the  usual  evidences  of  their  appointment  ; 
and  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Clerks,  and  they  are  hereby 
directed  to  form  the  roll  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1838, 
by  including  thereiji  the  names  of  all  Commissioners  from 
Presbyteries  belonging  to  the  said  Presbytenan  chunh, 
not  omitting  the  Commissioners  from  the  several  Presby- 
teries within  the  bounds  of  the  Synods  of  Utica,  Geneva, 
Genessee,  and  the  Western  Reserve;  and  in  all  things  to 
4brm  the  said  roll  according  to  the  known  practice  and  es.-- 


152' 

ttibiisheJ  usngc  of  previous    General  Assemblies."  McEl- 
roy's  Report,  p.  85. 

The  I\IoiJerritor  informed  Dr.  Patton  that  he  was  out  of 
order,  as  the  first  business  was  the  report  on  the  roll.  It 
was  then  stated,  that  the  resohuions  rehited  to  the  forma- 
tion of  the  roll.  'I'he  Mode'rator  then  said  the  Uierk  had 
the  floor.  Dr.  Patton  replied  that  he  had  the  floor  be- 
fore the  Clerk.  The  Moderator  again  declared  him  out  of 
order..  Dr.  Patton  then  appealed  from  the  decision  of  the 
chair.  But  the  Moderator  declared  the  appeal  out  of  or- 
der, and  Dr.  Patton  took  his  seat  without  reading  the 
resolutions. 

The  clerk  then  read  tho  roll  of  the  Commissioners,  ex- 
cluding those  from  the  excinded  Synods. 

After  that,  IheModerator  announced  that  if  there  were 
other  Commissioners,  whose  names  had  not  been  entered  on 
the  rolUlhey  could  then  present  them. 

Dr.  Mason  then  rose  and  said  :  "  Mr.  Moderator,  I  hold 
in  my  hand  a  number  of  commissions,  which  have  been  re- 
jected by  the  Clerks :  I  now  tender  them  to  the  house,  and 
move  that  the  names  be  added  to  the  roll."  The  motion  was 
seconded.  I'he  IModerator  asked  if  they  were  from  Pres- 
byteries belonging  to  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Dr.  Ma- 
son replied,  they  were  from  the  Synods  of  Utica,  Geneva, 
Genessee  and  Western  Reserve.  The  Moderator  declared 
the  motion  to  receive  those  commissions  was  out  of  order. 
From  this  decision  Dr.  Mason  said  he  would  appeal  to  the 
house.  The  appeal  was  seconded.  But  the  Moderator 
declared  tho  appeal  was  out  of  order. 

These  were,  to  be  sure,  strange  decisions,  when  it  is  re- 
membered that  the  rules  of  the  house  say  :  "  The  ques- 
tion on  the  appeal  shcdl  he  iaken.^' 

When  Dr.  Mason  had  taken  his  seat.  Rev.  Miles  P. 
Squirer,  a  Com.missioner  from  one  of  the  excinded  Synods,, 
rose  and  stated  to  the  Moderator,  that  he  had  a  commis- 
sion, which  had  been  presented,  to  the  Clerks  and  rejected 
by  them,  and  that  he  now  presented  it  to  the  house.  When 
the  Moderator  learned  from  him  that  he  came  from  the  ex- 
cinded region,  he  said  :  "  We  do  not  know  you,  sir."  ^Iv. 
Squirer  then  took  his  seat. 

What  now  could  be  done  ?  It  was  evident,  the  Mode- 
rator and  Clerks  had  conspired  to  prevent  a  const ituiionG.1 


1.53. 

crganizathn  of  the  Assembly.  The  Moderator  would 
put  no  motion  to  the  house,  however  orderly  it  might  be, 
which  did  not  favor  a  party  organization.  He  would  al- 
low no  appeal  from  his  decisions.  Business  was  at  a  stand, 
except  the  wire-working  of  the  Moderator  and  Clerks, 
who  were  doubtless  doing  as  their  Convention  had  directed 
them.  It  was  necessary  that  tlie  meeting  should  organ- 
ize, and  it  was  necessary  that  some  other  person  should 
put  a  motion  to  the  house*  This  was-  done.  The  Rev. 
John  P.  Cleaveland  rose  and  stated  in  substance  :  "  That 
as  the  Commissioners  to  the  General  Assembly  for  1838,. 
from  a  large  number  of  Presbyteries,  had  been  refused 
their  seats  ;  and  as  we  had  been  advised  by  counsel  learn- 
ed in  the  law,  that  a  constitutional  organization  of  the 
Assembly  must  be  secured  at  this  time  and  this  place,  he 
trusted  it  would  not  be  considered  as  an  act  of  discourtesy, 
but  merely  as  a  matter  of  necessity,  if  we  now  proceed  to 
organize  the  General  Assembly  of  1838,  in  the  fewest 
words,  the  shortest  time,  and  with  the  least  interruption 
practicable.  He  therefore  moved  that  Dr.  Beman,  from 
the  Presbytery  of  Troy,  be  Moderator,  to  preside  till  a 
new  Moderator  be  chosen^."" 

The  motion  was  seconded,  and  then  put  to  the  house  by 
Mr.  Cleaveland.  It  was  carried  by  a  large  majority  of 
those  who  voted,  only  a  (ew  voting  in  the  negative. 

Dr.  Mason  and  Rev.  E.  W.  Gilbert  were  chosen  Clerks.. 
Dr.  Beman  then  stated  that:  the  next  business  before  the 
house  was  the  election  of  Moderator.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Fish- 
er was  nominated  and  duly  elected. 

Dr.  Fisher  then  took  the  station  which  had  been  occupi- 
ed by  Dr.  Beman,  and  called  for  business.  The  Rev.  Dr. 
Mason  and  Rev.  Mr.  Gilbert  were  chosen  stated  and  per- 
manent Clerks.  A  motion  was  made  and  carried,  that 
the  General  Assembly  now  adjourn  to  meet  forth witji  jn 
the  session  room  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Cliurch. 

The  Reformers  remained  and  formed'  another  Assem= 
biy.     And  the  division  of  the  church  was  accomplished. 

Jt  has  been  objected  against  the  organization  of  the  As* 
sembly,  that  it  was  the  result  of  a   plan  ;  and  the  irnpres?. 
sion  has  often  been  made,    that  the  plan  was  laid  in  cuu". 
ning  and  secrecy.      But  is   was    proposed    and  adopted  in 
open  day,   with  open   doors,  and  the  Reformers  were  ap- 


154 

prised  of  it,  as  appears  from  the  following  statement  in 
reference  to  their  Convention  :  "  In  the  Old  School  Con- 
vention this  afternoon,  information  was  received,  that  the 
members  of  the  other  Convention,  by  a  vote  nearly  unani- 
mous : 

.  Kesohed,  That  if  any  of  their  jxirty  should  be  refused 
seats  in  the  General  Assembly,  about  to  be  constituted  on 
the  morrow,  they  will  themselves  organize  a  General  As- 
sembly at  the  same  place  at  the  proper  hour."  VV.  P.. 
Herald,  May  31,  1838. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  on  the  15th  of  May,  the 
Constitutional  party  made  their  overtures  for  an  amicable 
arrangement,  which  was  rejected  by  the  other  party.  The- 
next  day  [the  16th]  the  Reformers  are  in  possession  of  the- 
plan  which  the  Constitutional  party  intended  to  pursue  to 
secure  their  rights. 

The  resolution  referred  ta  was  in  these  words  : 

"  Resolved,  That,  should  a  portion  of  the  Commission- 
ers to  the  next  General  Assembly  attempt  to  organize  the 
Assembly,  without  admitting  to  their  seats  Commission- 
ers  from  all  the  Presbyteries  recognized  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Assembly  of  1837,  it  will  then  be  the  duty  of 
the  Commissioners  present  to  organize  the  General  As- 
sembly of  1838,  in  all  respects  according  to  the  Constitu-- 
tion,  and  so  transact  all  other  necessary  business  conse- 
quent upon  such  organization.'''  See  Cincinnati  Journal,. 
June  28,  1838. 

It  seems,  however,  that  the  Reformers  expected,  by  tak- 
ing possession  of  the  Seventh  Church,  as  a  Convention, 
before  the  other  party  could-  get  in  on  the  morning  of  the 
meeting  of  the  Assembly,  together  with  the  aid  of  the 
resolutions  of  the  Trustees  of  the  Seventh  Church,  allow- 
ing the  house  only  to  a  Reform  Assembly,  that  they  would 
be  able  to  prevent  a  Constitutional  organization. 

An  objection  has  been  urged  against  the  organization  of 
the  Assembly,  that  "  Mr.  Cleavelaud  had  no  right  to  put 
the  question  to  the  house."  To  this  it  has  been  replied, 
that  he  had  the  right,  according  to  the  usage  of  all  bodies, 
when  the  officers  are  absent,  or  refuse  to  do  their  duty. 
The  Moderator  is  the  servant  rather  than  the  mister  of  a 
deliberative  body.  He  possesses  delegated  power,  for  the 
l>reservci,Lion  of  order,  and  directing  operations  according 


^55 

to  the  rules  of  the  body,  tie  is  put  in  the  chair,  not  to 
prevent  the  orderly  operations  of  business  and  to  create 
disorder,  not  to  make  new  rules  or  nulify  old  ones,  but 
that  he,  as  well  as  the  members,  may  observe  the  rules  of 
the  body.  And  whenever  a  Moderator  sets  himself  above 
ti)e  law,  and  refuses  to  organize  the  body,  according  to  its 
rules,  he  forfeits  his  place.  This  is  a  correct  principle  in 
all  deliberative  Assemblies  of  freemen. 

On  this  point  the  Editor  of  the  Presbyterian  wished  to 
nnko  a  false  iasue.  He  said  :  "  Suppose  a  member  of 
€'ongress  should  rise  in  his  place,  after  the  house  was  or- 
ga7iized,  n.n(l  should  offer  a  motion  and  put  it,  would  it  not 
be  ridiculous  ?"  This  was  not  the  case  in  point.  Mr. 
Cleaveland  made  and  put  his  motion  before  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  house,  while  the  Moderator  of  the  previous 
Assembly  was  in  the  cliair^;r<?.  tern,  according  to  usage, 
till  the  Assembly  could  be  organized. 

But  to  make  a  supposition  in  point  :  Suppose  in  Con- 
gress, before  the  organization  of  the  house,  a  person  put 
pro.  tern,  in  the  chair,  a  chairman  or  a  clerk,  should  set 
himself  above  all  law,  hesitate  to  enrol  members,  refuse 
to  put  motions  or  appeals  to  the  house,  or  to  organize  ac- 
cording to  usage.  What  would  Congress  do  in  such  a  case? 
Would  they  be  obliged  to  submit  to  the  usurpation  or  ob- 
stinacy of  the  officer,  and  only  discuss  such  subjects  as  he 
would  propose,  or  take  such  action  as  he  would  allow  ?  It 
has  so  turned  out  that,  since  that  time.  Congress  has  been 
called  to  act  in  s\ich  a  case  ;  and  the  public  are  not  left 
to  guess  what  Congress  would  do  under  such  circum- 
stances. 

The  twenty  sixth  Congress  met  on  the  second  of  De- 
cember, 1839.  According  to  the  .laws  and  constitution  of 
the  United  States,  the  clerk  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
■tives  takes  the  chair  till  the  organization  of  the  body  is 
completed.  The  clerk,  at  the  proper  time  and  place, 
when  the  members  came  together,  commenced  calling  the 
roll.  He  proceeded  with  the  States  till  he  came  to  New 
Jersey.  He  then  proposed  passing  over  her  representa- 
tives, as  their  seats  would  be  contested.  Her  representa- 
tives were  whigs.  The  clerk  was  an  administration  man. 
Passing  over  these  members  would  probably  give  to  the 
.clerk's  party  tlie  ballaace  of  power  in  the  organization--^' 


156 

election  of  speaker,  &:c.  Here  business  came  to  a  stand. 
The  clerk  was  tinvilling  to  procaed,  excepc  in  his  own 
way*     On  the  fourth  day,  Mr.  Adams  rose  and  said: 

"  Fellovv-citizTiis  and  mim'jers  elect  of  the  Twenty 
Sixth  Congress  of  the  United  States:  I  address  myself  to 
you  'ind  not  to  the  clerk  in  the  chair,  under  a  painful  sense 
of  my  own  duty.  The  clerk  has  said  he  will  not  proceed 
in  the  call,  according  to  established  usage  and  custom.  He 
discovered  yesterday  that  ho  might  pat  the  question  of 
adjournment.  He  therefore  put  it  ;  but  he  gave  noticd 
that  he  should  put  no  other  question.  Fellow-citizens,  in 
what  predicament  are  we  thus  placed  ?  We  are  fixed  as 
firmly  and  as  immovably  as  these  columns  around  the 
house.  We  can  neither  go  forward  nor  backward,  and 
the  clerk  tells  us  that  he  will  persist  in  both  the  decisions 
he  has  made.  We  must  organize.  If  there  is  difRcuUy 
in  relation  to  any  portion  of  us,  we  must  do  what  Mr. 
Jefferson  said  was  done  when  Lord  Dunmore  dissolved  the 
legislature  of  Virginia  on  a  sudden.  What  did  they  do  ? 
They  adjourned  to  a  tavern — they  constituted  themselves 
a  convention,  and  they  acted  as  the  legislature  of  the  state 
or  colony.  They  actually,  instead  of  being  assembled  in 
the  place  from  which  the  act  of  the  Governor  had  exclu- 
ded thein,  adjourned  to  another  place,  formed  themselves 
into  a  convention,  and  there  acted  in  the  name  of  the  State. 
I  call  upon  you,  in  the  name  of  the  people,  to  organize.  I 
call  upon  the  House  to  set  aside  entirely  his  decisions,  and 
to  act  for  themselves.  I  have  no  deubt  <3f  their  |)ewer  to 
doit.  Therefore,  in  submitting  this  proposition,  1  have  no 
reference  to  the  clerk,  nor  to  any  opinion  of  his.  I  pro- 
pose that  the  House  itself  should  act.  It  may,  if  it  pleas- 
es, choose  a  temporary  clerk." 

These  extracts  from  Mr.  Adam's  speech  will  show  how 
Congress-men  feel  in  a  case  in  which  an  officer  refuses  to 
do  his  duty.  Mr.  Adams  was  repeating  his  call  upon  the 
House  to  act,  regardless  of  the  gentleiwan  in  ihe  chair, 
when  he  was  interrupted  by  many  naerabers  asking  :  "How 
«hall  the  question  be  put?" — "Who  will  put  the  ques- 
tion ?"  Mr.  Adams  replied,  raising  his  voice  above  the 
tumult  :  "  I  intend  to  put  the  question."  Mr.  Adams  was 
accordingly  soon    nominated  and  elected  to  act  as  chair- 


157 

man,  till  the  House  could  be  orginized  and  a  speaker  ap- 
pointeil. 

Here,  19,  then,  a  case  in  point.  Has  any  one  contemled 
that  Mr.  Adams  had  no  right  to  put  the  question  ?  Has 
any  one  said  that  the  Twenty  Sixth  Congress  was  not 
constitutionally  orginized,  because  the  gentleman  in  the 
chair  was  removed  and  another  put  in  his  placf^  1 

And  how  very  similar  the  two  organizations.  The 
moderator  of  one  body  and  the  cleric  cf  the  ether,  accor- 
ding to  lav.',  were  acting  as  chairmen  till  the  organization 
of  the  bodies,  and  the  election  of  presiding  officers.  The 
chairman  of  each  body  refuses  to  enrel  certain  members 
cioiming  seats,  with  commissions  in  proper  form.  They 
refuse  to  put  motions  bearing  upon  the  roll.  Mr.  C'eave- 
kuid  in  one  body,  and  Mr.  Adams  in  the  other,  rise  and 
call  upon  the  members  to  organize — to  act  regardless  cf 
t!ie  decisions  of  the  chair,  and  appoint  other  officers  whu 
will  organize  according  to  law  and  usage.  And  the  thing 
was  done.  There  was  opposition,  and  cries  of  order  from 
.t'iiose  who  were  opposed  to  the  organizations.  Br.t  thti 
.voices  of  Mr.  Adams  and  Mr.  Cleaveland  rose  above  the 
swelling  tumult — above  the  cries  of  order,  the  coughing 
and  scraping  of  the  opposition,  and  were  heard  by  all  who 
wanted  to  liear. 

It  is  a  matter  of  history/,  that  there  v/as  confusion  and 
noise  in  the  organization  of  the  Assembly.  The  efiort 
was  made  by  leading  men  among  the  Reform  party  to 
fasten  the  odium  of  the  tumult  upon  the  Constitutional  pir- 
ty.  On  this  point,  also,  it  is  but  fair  that  the  Reformers 
should  be  heard.  The  "  Presbyterian,"  it  v.'ould  seem, 
was  satisfied  that  the  "  New  Schnol"  had  ^*  tUterJy  dis- 
graced themselves,''''  The  reason  is  thus  given  :  '*  Mr. 
Cleaveland  rose,  and  with  a  disregard  to  all  decoruni,  sel- 
dom witnessed  in  any  place,  proceeded,  in  defiance  of  all 
the  authority  of  the  moderator,  to  read  the  resolution. 
The  New  School  party  then  rose  in  a  most  disorderly 
manner,  yelling  and  shouting,  and  voting,  pre'endinT  to 
organize  by  the  appointment  of  a  moderator  and  clerk,  and 
then,  amidst  the  clapping  of  a  dozen  or  two  of  their  par- 
ty, retired  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes'  church,  cryino-  out  as 
they  retired  :  '  The  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyteri- 
an Church  will  meet  iq  the  First  Prebvterian  Church."' 
14 


158 

^Villl  this  he  tlien  contrasts  the  conduct  of  the  "Reformer?: 
'  I'hey  remained  quiet  in  their  seats  during  this  outrage.' 
t^ce  W.  P.  Herald,  iMay  31st,  1838. 

The  Pittsburgh  Cliristian  Herald,  another  Reform  pa- 
per, thus  closes  his  notice  of  the  affair  :  "  This  ridiculous 
nod  riotous  farce  was  concluded  with  stamping  and  clap- 
]  ing,  as  if  they  iiad  obtained  a  great  victory,  which  they 
certainly  did  over  common  decency  and  common  sense. 
U  IS  gratifying  to  add,  that  except  the  declaration  of  the 
moderator,  that  they  were  out  of  order,  which  was  mildly 
;tiid  decorously  announced,  there  was  not  an  act  or  a  word 
l)y  any  member  of  our  house,  and  to  hear  the  screams  of 
<i:/e  at  the  different  votes,  and  see  and  hear  the  mobbish 
manner  in  which,  the  whole  was  conducted  and  concluded 
was  far  beyond  what  1  ever  witnessed  before."  See  \V. 
P.   Herald,  May  31st,  1838. 

The  Editor  of  the  W.  P.  Herald,  May  31,  1838,  deiiom- 
ipiuted  the  organization  of  the  Assembly  '■'■  ariol''\  He 
.said  '.  "  That  gentlemen  cf  respectability — that  Presbyte- 
rian ministers  and  ruling  elders  of  decent  character  should 
liive  deliberately  formed  and  attempted  to  execute  a  scheme 
jU  once  so  indecent,  vulgir  and  ridiculous,  is,  we  firmly 
beUove,  a  thing  without  a  parallel.  Their  partisans  may 
tall  it  by  what  name  they  please,  but  we  are  well  satisfied, 
t'iiat  all  calm  and  decent  people  will  call  it  a  riot,  and  noth- 
iiir'  more  or  less  can  be  made  of  it." 

Mr.  Hawthorn,  a  Reformer  from  Kentucky,  said  :  "  Mr. 
Cleaveland  demandi^d  to  be  permitted  to  read  his  paper, 
r»ni  in  the  midst  of  loud  cries  of  order,  he  proceeded. 
Then  ensued  a  scene  of  confusion  unparalleled  in  the 
meetings  of  the  Assembly.  1  must,  however,  be  permitted 
to  say  thai  it  was  almost  exclusively  among  the  New 
School  party  and  the  spectators."  See  W.  P.  Herald, 
luny  31,  1838. 

It  will  be  seen  that  these  naralives  differ  in  one  point — 
nhout  the  confusion.  The  Pittsburgh  [lerald  declares  that 
'■'■  there  was  not  an  acl  or  a  word  by  any  member"  among 
I'iip  Reformers,  "  except  the  declaration  of  the  moderator, 
ivhich  was  mildly  and  decorously  announced."  But  Mr. 
Hawthorn  says,  that  Mr.  Cleaveland  proceeded  to  read  his 
paper  '■'  in  the  midst  of  loud  cries  of  order,'"  from  the 
Reformers  of   course. 


159 

To  judge,  however,  of  ihc  correctness  of  the  foregomg 
statements,  other  sources  of  informtition  sliould  be  referred; 
to.  The  American  Sentinel,  a  political  daily  paper  of  Phi- 
ladelphia, i^aid  :  "  This  body*met  yesterday  at  the  placo 
appointed  by  the  Assembly  of  last  year.  The  various  ru- 
ijiors  which  were  afloat  in  the  morning,  led  us  to  expect 
division  and  confusion  from  the  conflicting  claims  of  liio 
parties.  A  large  concourse  was  present  ;  happily^  liow- 
ever,  the  parly  known  as  the  New  School,  had  taUen  their 
measures  with  so  much  wisdom,  and  carried  ihem  ihroiigli. 
with  so  much  moderation,  promptness  and  confidence,  thiit 
the  other  party  were  taken  by  surprise  and  allowed  then* 
to  go  on  and  elect  their  officers  and  complete  the  orgamzu- 
tion  of  the  Assembly  with  entire  unanimity.  VVe  leari'v 
that  the  course  pursued  by  the  Trustees  of  the  Sev^;nli^i 
Presbyterian  Church  rendered  ano;her  pluce  of  meeting 
necessary  ;  and  the  Assembly  adjourned  to  meet  in  tho 
First  Presbyterian  Church,  where  its  sessions  will  hcrnai- 
ter  be  held.  Perhaps  it  would  have  been  better  if  tlio 
audience  had  withheld  their  applause  when  the  work  was 
done.  We  nve  also  inforraed  that  the  Oid  School  par:/ 
organized  after  the  others  had  left  the  house.  T.Se  party 
known  as  the  New  School  did  not  adopt  this  course  unt.l 
it  was  rendered  certain  that  their  brethren  were  fully  de- 
termined to  carry  out  the  aggressive  measures  of  the  lis-t 
Assembly,  by  which  five  hundred  ministers  and  sixty 
thousand  chu-rch  members  were  illegally, and  without  trial, 
declared  to  be  no  longer  connected  with  the  Presbyteririii 
church.  The  aggrieved  party  have  now  rendered  tliC;/ 
clmrches  secure."' 

An  examination,.  hoAvever,  of  the  testimony  before  tho 
Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania  in  the  Church  Case,  Will 
prove  more  satisfactory  than  any  newspaper  accounts. 

In  the  trial,  the  Keformers  had  thirty  witnesses.  The 
greater  portion  of  these  testified  that  the  tumult  was  charge- 
able upon  the  olher  party.  It  will  be  borne  in  mind,  liuit 
all  these  witnesses,  except  one  or  two,  were  of  the  Refoiin 
party — some  of  them  the  leaders  of  the  party,  ani  the 
very  persons  concerned  in  the  transactions  which  woro 
undergoing  a  legal  investigation,  viz.:  Messrs  Breckinridge,. 
Pluiner,  the  Moderator,  the  Clerk,  &;c.  And  some  of  the 
vv:it.aes.sea  were  salaried  oiiioers^  wha  made  their  bread  by 


160 

«t 

serving  their  party,  viz.  :  Drs.  Miller,  Elliot,  Messrs.  Mc- 
Parian,  Lowiie,  &c.  It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  that  ttiese 
j^entlcmen  would  consider  everj  thing  very  disorderly  that 
would  be  attempted  by  the  Constitutional  party  to  stay  the 
usurpations  and  disorders  of  the  so  called  reform. 

Tl,e  testimony  of  Professor  .McLean,  (an  Old  vSohool 
man)  a  member  of  the  Assembly  of  1838,  and  a  witness 
for  the  Reformers,  was  as  fair  as  could  have  been  expect- 
ed. He  said:  "  That  there  had  been  as  liitle  disturbance 
!)y  the  members  of  the  New  School  party,  as  had  been 
possible,  in  that  state  of  things."  "  1  thought  that  the 
jumuU  couldnot  he  cliargcd  on  them,  though  they  were 
the  occasion  of  it" — "  I  thought  the  proceedings  dison'er- 
ly,  of  course  ;  1  have  never  thought  otherwise.'' — "To- 
ward the  conclusion  of  the  scene,  there  was  clapping  and 
some  hissing.  1  did  not  know  any  of  the  individuals  wiio 
clapped  or  hissed,  but  supposed  the  clapping  was  in  appro- 
bation, and  tlie  hissing  in  disapprob;ition." — "  1  saw  no 
dripping  or  hissing  from  any  member  of  the  Assembly."' — 
*'  The  voices  of  the  T-few  School  in  votino;  wore  altofrcther 
above  the  pitch  necessary  to  be  heard." 

Counsel  for  ike  ISeio  School  asked — "  Was-  it  no:  neccs- 
sary  to  speak  loud  in  order  to  be  heard  ?" 

Witness. — "It  was  a  perfect  scene  of  confusion.  I 
.suppose  it  was  necessary  to  speak  loud  in  proportion  to 
the  noise  in  order  to  be  heard.  Tlie  voice  naturally  rises 
in  loudness  with  excitement." 

Counsel. — "  Is  it  not  more  probable  that  the  opponents 
of  the  New  School  men  would  make  a  noise  to  interrupt 
them,  than  that  //ie;/ should  interrupt  themselves  ?" 

Witness. — "  As  un  abstract  proposition  it  may  be  so." 
ScPxMcElroy's  Report,  pp.  240,241. 

.Mr.  Norris,  an  Episcopalian,  was,  with  not  more  than 
one  exception,  the  only  witness  for  the  Old  School,  who 
was  not  an  Old  School  Presbyterian.  He  did  not  fix  the 
confusion  upon  the  New  School.  The  most  that  he  said 
about  the  noise  was  in  these  words  :  "  1  saw  Mr.  Cleave- 
jand  rise.  He  held  a  paper  in  his  hand,  and  appeared  as 
if  he  was  reading  from  the  papnr.  He  read  in  a  very  loud 
voice.  His  voice  was  very  loud,  clear  and  distinct.  I 
could  hear  every  thing  which  he  iv  ad,  but  do  not  now  re-. 
Tj^fcrnber  what  it  'A;as.      When  he  finished   reading  the  pa- 


161 

per,  as  I  presumed,  he  nominated  Dr.  Bemaii  to  act  as- 
ehairman.  I  heard  a.  very  loud  atliiTnative,  I  should  tiiink 
fro0)  tlie  galleries,  as  well  as  the  lower  part  of  the  house."' 
See  McEIroy's  Report,  page  239. 

Rev.  Mr.  Boardinan,  an  Old  School  witness,  said  :  "  'i'he 
Moderator  called  him  [Mr.  Cleaveland]  toorder, and  rapped 
with  his  hammer  repeatedly,  and  there  were  cries  of  order 
from  a  number  of  the  members  around  m  3,  who  used  va~ 
rlous  expressions;  some  cried  ^  shame,  shntne,^  and  I  heard 
one  or  two  gentlemen'  say  :  'Let  him  go  on.'  At  this 
time  some  rose  on  their  feet,  and  there  were  some  standing 
on  the  seats,  which  prevented  me  from  seeing  Mr.  Cleave- 
land."    See  McEIroy's  Report,  p.  216. 

The  reader  will  see  how  this  contrasts  with  the  ac- 
counts that  went  out  at  the  time  through  the  papers  of  t!u3 
Old  School  to  their  readers  :  "  Except  ihe  declaration  of 
the  Moderator  that  they  wero  out  of  order,  whicl)  was 
mildhj  and  decorously  announced,  there  -arts  not  cm  act  or 
a  ivjrd  by  any  member  of  our  house." 

Dr.  Miller,  of  Princeton,  was  a  witness  for  the  Reform- 
ers. He  said  :  "It  was  indeed  a  scene  of  great  excite- 
ment, and  I  was  surprised  to  find  myself,  though  not  a 
Commissioner,  unconsciously  waving  my  hand  and  ex- 
pressing a  wish  for  the  restoration  of  order."  See  McEN- 
roy's  Report,  p.  312. 

It  was  to  be  sure  a  scene  of  excitement.  And  if  Dr. 
Miller,  whose  character  and  deportment  was  .sanctifird  by 
years  and  religion,  was  found,  though  not  a  member,  Wii- 
ving  his  hand  and  crying  order,  what  was  to  be  expected 
of  men  whose  career  has  been  marked  by  rashness  and 
violence  ? 

But  some  of  the  teslimony  on  tlie  otlier  side  must  be  ex- 
hibited. Mr.  Gemmili  was  a  witness  for  the  Constitution- 
alist^, and  not  a  member  of  any  church.  He  said  :  '«  I  at- 
tended the  church  in  Ranatead  Court  on  the  day  of  tho 
organization  of  the  Assembly  j»C  183S.  1  was  leaning  on 
a  pew,  near  the  South  West  door,  just  under  the  gallery, 
not  far  from  the  Moderator.  I  saw  Mr.  Cleaveland  rise, 
but  did  not  hear  much  of  what  ho  said,  because  of  the 
noise  around  me.  In  the  neighborhood  where  I  was,  there- 
was  a  great  deal  of  scraping  with  the  feet,  stamping  and' 
•atlier  unseemly  noises.  1  saw  a  great  nwnber  of  thaOii. 
14* 


**  162. 

School  members  around  me.  I  saw  none  otlier  in  that 
pew  or  in  tlie  vicinity  where  1  was."  "  Some  of  them 
scraped  with  tlicir  feet  and  fetamped  on  the  floor,  and  there 
was  considerable  other  noise  in  tiiat  neighborhood.  This 
Mas  while  Mr.  Cleaveland  was  speaking  or  reading.  His 
face  was,  at  first,  towards  the  Moderator,  that  is,  when  he 
first  commenced.  1  spoke  to  some  of  the  gentlemen 
around  me,  and  asked  what  was  the  necessity  of  making 
!^o  much  noise.  1  knew  some  of  them  to  be  ministers,^. 
and  said  to  them,  that  1  thought  that  was  pietty  conduct 
for  clergymen,  and  asked  them  if  they  had  not  better  hear 
what  the  genileman  who  was  reading  had  to  say." — **  !• 
am  not  a  member  of  any  church,  and  felt  that  it' was  rath- 
or  assuming  for  me  to  rebuke  them,  but  I  thought  their 
(conduct  justified  me,  and  I  wanted  to  hear." — "There  was 
a  tun.ult  through  the  house.  1  cannot  saj-  that  it  was 
confined  to  the  Old  School  party,  but  1  understood  that 
ttiose  near  me  were  the  GId  School.  They  generally  act- 
ed with  the  Old  School  party." — "  I  should  not  call  it  a- 
riot.  There  was  scraping  and  coughing.  1  was  twenty, 
or  thirty  feet  fiom  Mr.  Cleaveland,  and  there  did  not  ap- 
pear to  be  as  much  noise  nf^ar  him  as  about  where  1  was.'' 
See  McElroy's  Keport,  pp.  246,  247. 

Mr.  Elms,  a  Congregationalist,  was  a  witness  for  the 
Constitutional  party.  fJe  said  :  "I  stood  near  the  Moder*- 
at(jr.  Dr.  Miller  was  between  Dr.  Elliot  and  me.  Dr. 
Elliot  liammered  and  called  to  order,  and  Dr.  Miller  tried 
to  hush  the  noise.  He  put  his  hand  up  as  though  to  stop 
ti)e  tumult,  and  used  some  expression  like  '  Let  them  go 
through.'  Dr.  Miller,  I  think,  stood  up  at  this  moment. 
He  had  before  been  sitting.  This  was  about  the  time  Mr. 
Cleaveland  was  endeavoring  to  read  his  paper.  The  tu- 
mult was  the  calling  to  order,  very  loudly,  in  the  neigh- 
bor! ood  of  the  Moderator.  All  the  noise  pretty  much  that 
]  heard  was  in  that  part  of  the  house." — "The  reason 
why  1  could  not  hear  all  distinctly,  was,  that  there  were 
calls  to  order.  The  Moderator  called  to  order  very  loudly, 
and  thumped  with  his  hammer;  and  others  around  him 
ralhd  order  loudly.  There  was  a  good  deal  of  stir  and 
bustle.  This  w;is  what  ]  meant,  when  I  spoke  of  tumult." 
yee  McElroy's  Report,  251. 

la  justice" to  the  Hon..  Mr.  Lowrie,  it  ought  to  be  stated;. 


that  in  his  neigijborhood,  he  heard  '*  no  hgisJulive  cough- 
ing.'^ And  in  reference  to  many  of  the  Reform  witnesses^. 
it  may  be  conjecttired  that  they  were  in  the  midst  of  so 
much  noise,  from  calling  to  orJer,  rapping  the  hammer, 
cries  of  '  shame,  shame,^  '  let  them  go  on,'  '  legislative 
coughing,'  &c.  that  they  were  poorly  qualified  to  say  upon 
whom  the  tumult  was  chargeable. 

Be  the  facts  as  they  may,  it  is  difficult  for^an  unbiassed 
mind  to  perct-ive  what  object  the  Constitutional  party  could 
liave  in  view  in  raising  a  tumult  to  defeat  their  own  org?in- 
izaiion.  But  so  the  Reformers  would  have  it.  They  call-- 
ed  it  •'  a  riot.'''  And  those  who  aided  in  the  organization 
of  the  Assembly  they  called  "  rioters.-^  So  at  least,,  said. 
the  Editor  of  the  Western  Presbyterian  Herald... 


(  16-4  > 


CHAPTER  XXr. 


THE  POLICY  OF  THE  NEW  BASIS  ASSEMBLY. 


Though  the  division  of  the  General  Assennhly  was  ef- 
fected at  its  meeting  in  May,  18S8,  yet  the  division  gen- 
erally throughout  the  churches  was  somewhat  gradual, 
'ilie  Reformers,  by  the  excision  of  nearly  one  fourth  of 
the  church,  had  made  the  impression  upon  the  minds  of 
many,  who  had  no  sympathy  for  their  new  measures,  that 
they  were  the  church,  seeming  to  be  the  majority — such 
persons  supposing  that  the  majority,  by  whatever  means 
secured,  must  be  the  church. 

By  this  policy  of  the  reform  party,  it  must  be  conceded, 
that  when  the  Assembly  divided,  countingall  who  claim- 
ed seats,  the  Reformers  had  the  majority.  The  reform 
estimate  of  thn  strength  of  the  parties,  after  the  division 
of  the  Assembly,  was  briefly  ihe  following: 

Whole  number,  claiming  seats  in  the  Assembly  of  1838,  -        282 

Whole  number  who  acted  with  the  Reformers,  -  -  156 

Leaving  for  the  Constitutional  Assembly,  including  a  few  neutrals,  126 
(See  Western  Presbyterian  Herald,  June  14th,  1838.) 

According  to  this  estimate,  the  Reformers  had  fifteen 
more  than  half  of  the  Assembly. 

But  the  strength  of  parties  in  the  Assembly  did  not  ex- 
hibit the  strength  of  parties  throughout  the  church.  After 
the  division  of  the  Assembly,  the  Reformers  claimed  the 
Southern  Slates  almost  entirely.  They  congratulated' 
themselves  that  ^^six  ministers'''  constituted  the  strength  of 
the  "Neio  School"  in  the  South.  In  this  they  suffered 
themselves  to  be  deceived,  as  subsequent  events  have 
proved. 

After  the  division  of  the  Assembly,  the  Synods,  Presby*- 


165 

< 

teries  and  Churches  had  to  take  action  on  the  subject  oP 
separation.  Tliis  was  not  generally  done  till  the  next  fall, 
and  then  not  completely  ;  for  since  that  period  several 
Presbyteries,  and  many  churches  have  left  the  New  Ba.sia, 
and  planted  themselves  again  upon  the  constitution  of  the 
church. 

In  noticing  the  policy  of  the  Reformers,  we  must  in  jus- 
tire  confine  ourselves  to  their  own  documents  and  reports. 
Their  correctness  or  incorrectness,  as  regards  principles 
oy  matters  of  fact,  is  a  subject  of  lawful  investigation. 
And  whetlier  iheir  principles  are  more  in  accordance  with 
truth  than  tiieir  statements,  the  reader  must  judge.  It  can- 
nut,  however,  escape  the  notice  of  any  one,  that  much  that 
was  said  in  their  papers  and  documents  was  for  effect. 

Let  the  reader  take  up  the  Western  Presbyterian  Ho 
aid  of  the  14th  of  June,  1838,  and  he  may  have  a  speci- 
men of  things  reported  for  effect.  There  the  Editor,  who 
boasts  as  much  nobleness  and  fairness  as  is  common  a- 
mong  his  Reform  brethren,  sends  out  to  his  readers  a  re- 
port of  seven  things, which  he,  no-doubt,  was  willing  they 
should  believe  "for  substance  of  doctrine,"  or,  "as  a  sys- 
tem :" 

1.  "That  Dr.  Taylor,  of  New  Haven,  officiated  and 
preached  the  action,  sermon"  for  the  Constitutional  As- 
sembly. 

2.  "That  Dr.  Richards,  of  Auburn,  one  of  the  most  jur 
dicious  divines  connected  with  the  secession,  retired  from 
tiieir  councils  in  disgust,  very  soon  after  the  Constitutional 
Assend)ly  was  organized." 

3i  "That  Judge  Hal!  one  of  the  most  judicious  laymen 
connected  with  the  secession,  did  not  hesitate  to  express 
the  opinion  that  they  were  destroying  their  prospects,  by 
their  imprudent  and  undignified  proceedings." 

4.  "That  the  biethren  (in  the  Constitutional  Assembly) 
v;ere  sometimes  constrained  to  laugh  outright  at  the  ludi- 
crousness  of  their  appearance." 

5.  "That  our  brethren  of  the  secession  seriously  contem- 
plated at  one  time  superceding  that  tyroin  theology,  Ar- 
chibald Alexander,  and  filling  the  chair  which  he  has  so 
unworthily  occupied  in  the   Seminary    at  Princeton,  uith 

-the  venerable  Albert  Barnes." 

6.  **That   certaii)  persons^   spqnd    Presbyterians  to  be 


166 
ft 

sure,  and  very  lionorable  men,  have  given  reason  lo  ex- 
pect that  they  will  adhere  lo  the  Presbyterian  church,  or 
depart  to  the  Seceders,  according  as  the  civil  courts  shall 
adjudge  the  church  property  to  the  one  or  the  other  of 
these  bodies.  Verily,  these  conscientious  lovers  of  truth 
and  order,  and  contenniers  of  filthy  lucle,  remind  one  of 
^  a  toast  said  to  have  been  offered  some  years  ago,  on  a  pub- 
lic occasion  in  Richmond,  Va.,  by  John  Randolph — The 
venerah/e  Tlioynas  Ritchie,  and  his  principles ;  just  seven 
— -^ce  loaves  and  twojishes.^^ 

7.  "That  our  seceding  brethren  Intend  to  claim,  not  on- 
fy  all  the  property  held  by  the  Trustees  of  the  General 
Assembly,  but  all  the  property  held  by  all  the  congrega- 
tions heretofore  connected  with  the  Presbyterian  church  in 
the  United  States  of  America." 

Had  the  veracity  of  this  Editor  at  this  time  been  called 
in  question,  it  is  probable  he  would  have  substantiated  the 
whole  by  certificates,  as  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Stiles'  unsound- 
ness in  the  faith,  and  the  certificate  of  Mr.  Craig  ! 

Though  the  Editor  was  willing  that  his  readers  should 
believe  these  things  "for  substance  of  doctrine,"  yet  he 
was  himself  chargeable  with  an  inconsistency  never  iin- 
pnted  even  to  the  "New  School,"  viz.:  wanting  others  to 
believe  "for  subs'ance  of  doctrine"  what  he  did  not  liim-- 
self  believe. 

It  should'  not,  however,  be  supposed,  that  in  these  seven 
reports  theve  \\a.s  nothing  trvjs.  About  two-sevenths  of 
the  statements  were  true;  especially  what  was  said  under 
the  sixth  item  about  "certain  persons"  of  serc/t  ^jri/ici- 
ples — -Jive  7oves  and  iwojishes.  These  are  the  persons,  nO' 
doubt,  of  whom  this  same  Editor  was  speaking  in  the  W. 
P.  Herald,  of  July  21st,  1836,  when  he  said:  "There  are 
always  some  ready  to  join  the  stwngest  party,  just  be- 
cause it  is  the  strongest  parly."  What,  therefore,  was 
said  on  this  point  was  true.  Those  who  love  to  go  with 
t!ie  strongest  party — men  of  serew  principles,  belong  not 
to  the  Constitutional  parly.  T^nd,  indeed,  after  laboring 
from  1830  to  J837  to  get  the  stronger  party  and  the  men 
Q^  seven  principles,  the  Reformers  ought  not  to  complain, 
at   their  success.. 

Well,  as  the  newspaper   reports    of  the  Reformers  are 


107 

not  to  be  relied  on,  the  doings  of  other  bodies  must  claim 
attention. 

When  the  Reformers,  year  after  year,  were  in  the  mi- 
nority, and  were  laboring  for  division,  they  then  talked 
about  an  amicaUe  se'pciration,  and  an  amicable  dioision  of 
diurch  properly.  But  when  they  found  themselves  a  ma- 
jority in  the  Assembly,  and  had  formed  a  division  by  ex- 
cision and  other  unconstitutional  measures,  they  seemed 
to  have  greatly  changed  their  opinions  about  amicable  ad- 
justments. Tne  attempt  was  early  made  by  the  Reform 
party  to  set  up  an  exclusive  claim  to  the  name,  privileges, 
rights  and  property  of  the  church.  They  were  unwilling 
the  community  should  regard  the  Constitutional  party  as 
one  division  of  the  body,  but  as  a  faction  of  seceders,  who 
hid  gone  out  from  them,  renouncing  the  name,  the  doc- 
trines, or  any  claim  to  a  share  of  the  property  of  the 
church. 

That  this  is  a  correct  view  of  the  reform  policy,  will  ap- 
pear from  a  history  of  the  times.  Below  are  given  sonl^ 
resolutions  which  were  before  the  New  Basis  Assembly  of 
1838.  They  were  not  acted  on,  it  wns  said,  because  "the 
secession  commenced  their  suits  at  law."  But  the  Edi- 
tor of  the  Presbj'terian,  in  publishing  them,  says:  "In  the 
main,  we  believe  they  expressed  the  mind  of  the  As- 
sembly." 

The  first  paper  was  offered  by  Dr.  Phillips,  and  is  as 
follows : 

"  Whereas,  the  Presbyterian  church  in  the  United  States, 
as  now  represented  in  the  General  Assembly  of  the  same, 
have  for  years  contended  for  the  doctrines  and  order  of 
the  gospel,  for  the  truth,  purity,  peace  and  spiritual  pros- 
perity of  the  church,  and  not  for  earthly  gain  ;  and  where- 
as, a  portion  of  what  has  heretofore  been  called  the  Pres- 
byterian church,  have  voluntarily  gone  out  from  us,  and 
by  their  secession  and  separate  organization,  have  for- 
feited in  law,  all  their  title  to  any  of  the  property  belong- 
ing to  the  Presbyterian  church  ;  and  whereas,  the  General 
Assembly  have  no  desire  to  hold  or  use  any  funds,  which 
may  in  equity  belong  to  said  secession,  therefore, 

^''Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  ascertain 
what  portion,  if  any,  of  the  funds  in  the  hands  of  the 
Trustees  of   the  General    Assembly,    may   be   equitably 


claimed  by  tliosG  who  adhere  to  the  secession,  an  J  i-eport 
to  the  next  General  Assembly,  and  thus,  if  possible,  se- 
cure an  amicable  adjustment  of  our  pecuniary  affairs." 

The  other  paper  was  offered  by  Mr.  Breckinridge,  and 
is  as  follows  :     See  Cincinnati  Journal,  June  28th,  1888. 

"The  General  Assembly  of  tlie  Presbyterian  church  in 
the  United  Stales,  both  during  its  present  sessions,  and 
during  those  of  last  year,  had  distinctly  and  repented'y 
expressed  its  perfect  willingness  to  settle  all  the  difficul- 
ties, and  especially  those  of  a  pecuniary  kind,  wh.ich  have 
arisen,  or  could  arise,  between  those  Synods  which  have 
been  declared  out  of  our  ccrmexion,  and  all  who  have  se- 
ceded and  united  with  them,  on  the  one  part,  and  the  church 
itself  on  the  other. 

This  was  indeed  the  earnest  desire  of  the  churcli;  as 
well  because  of  tiie  questions  involved,  turned  finally  on 
questions  purely  ecclesiastical,  as  because  money  questions 
were  in  our  view  wholly  insignificant,  compared  with  oth- 
ers which  lay  behind  them.  And  as  we  construed  the  law 
of  God,  it  seemed  better,  even  f-o  take  wrong  and  suffer 
injustice  in  temporal  affairs,  than  to  be  prompt  to  hale 
even  nominal  christians  before  the  judge.  But  above  all. 
we  utterly  repudiate  all  pretensions,  from  whatever  quar- 
ter, to  control  the  conscientious  decisions  of  the  Church 
of  Christ,  on  matters  of  christian  doctrine,  order  or  disci- 
pline, by  the  civil  tribunals. 

We  are  bound,  and  we  hope  prepared,  to  render  to  CiR- 
sar  all  things  that  are  Csesar's,  but  we  are  also  bound,  and 
resolved,  never  to  surrender  to  Ctesar  the  things  whick 
are  onlv  God's. 

It  is,  therefore,  with  decided  repropation,  that  this  As- 
sembly has  learned,  not  only  that  suits  are  threatened  a- 
gainst  its  Board  of  Trustees,  but  that  other  suits  have 
been  actually  commenced  against  the  officers  of  this  body, 
and  several  of  its  members,  the  object, of  which  is,  not  on- 
ly to  prevent  the  free  action  of  our  ecclesiastical  courts, 
but  to  unchurch  the  .church  itself,  by  the  action  of  civil 
power. 

Under  the  present  state  of  these  painful  afiairs,  this  As^ 
semby  deems  it  a  solemn  duty,  to  declare,  and  does  here- 
by declare  : 

I.   That  it    expects   of  its  Board  of  Trustees  the  sama 


169 

loyalty  to  the  church,  and  the  same  fiJelity  to  its  Divino 
Lord,  that  have  marked  their  course  in  past  times,  and  it 
hereby  pledges  to  them  itssu()porl,  and  that  of  the  churches 
represented  in  it,  in  their  lawful  acts,  in  carrying  out  the 
decisions  of  the  last  and  present  Assemblies. 

2.  that  we  solemnly  in  the  name  of  God,  wliOse  we  arc, 
and  whom  we  try  to  serve,  and  on  behalf  of  bis  Church, 
of  wliidi  we  are  Ministers  and  Ruling  Elders,  anti  !is  com- 
missioners constituting  its  highest  earthly  court,  do  hereby 
protest  against  all  attempts  to  subject  tho  Church  of  Ci;rist, 
in  its  purely  ecclesiastical  action,  to  the  surveillance,  or 
revision  of  the  civil  power.  And  as  free  American  citi- 
•zeng,  we  renounce  for  ourselves  and  for  our  countrv,  all 
pretence  to  any  such    ruinous   power  as  it  regards  others. 

3.  That  the  churches  and  mincirities  of  churches  in  tiio 
bounds  or  under  the  care  of  cither  of  those  Synods  or 
Presbyteries,  which  were  declared  to  be  out  of  the  eccle- 
siaitical  connexion  of  the  Presbyleriah  Church  in 'I'hetjni- 
tcd  States  of  America — or  within  its  bounds,  or  under  the 
care  of  any  seceding  Presbytery  or  Synod,  which  cliurch- 
es  or  minorities  are  willing  to  adhere  to  the  Presbyterian 
Cluirch  in  manner  and  form  repeatedly  declared  by  this 
Assembly,  all  such  churches  and  minorities  are  hereby 
advised,  not  only  to  take  steps  for  their  early  union  with 
our  body,  but  also  to  protect  themselves  in  the  exercise  of 
ecclesiastical  rights,  to  secure  their  corporate  property  a- 
gainst  the  new  sect,  and  the  ruinous  principles  upon  which 
their  proceedings   go." 

These  [)apers,  not  acted  on  from  policy,  nevertheless, 
upon  the  testimony  of  ihe  Editor  of  the  Presbvterian, '"in 
the  main  expressed  the  mind  of  the  Assembly."  The  one 
oflfered  by  Mr.  Breckinridge  is  especiallv  worthy  of  no- 
tice, as  going  to  show  the  feelings  of  the  party. 

The  incorrectness  of  the  statement,  in  the  (irst  sentence, 
about  the  Reform  |)arty's  ""perfect  willingness  to  settle  ail 
the  difficulties,  and  especially  those  of  a  pecuniurv  kind," 
will  be  noticed  in  its  proper  place. 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  paper  that  the  Reformers  were 
ready  to  rebel  against  the  civil  authority,  should  an  at- 
tempt be  made,  as  they  had  learned  would  be  the  ease,  to 
bring  their  conduct  before  a  civil  tribunal.  See  their  bold 
declarations:  "We  utterly  repuJiate  all  pretentions,  from 
15 


170 

xvlialever  quarter,  to  coolrol  the  free  and  coivscientious 
(iucisiotis  of  the  Cluu-ch  of  Christ  (ihe  R^;form  parly)  on 
in.-itters  of  christian  doctrine,  order  or  discipline,  by  liie 
civil  tribunals."  "VVc  sjlemnly,  in  the  name  of  God, 
uhose  we  are,  and  whom  we  try  to  serve,  and  on  behalf 
of  Ins  chiir  li,  of  which  we  are  ministers  and  ru'ing  el- 
ders, and  as  coiiiinissioners  constituting  its  highest  earth- 
ly courtjdo  herel)y  protest  against  all  attempts  to  subject 
tlie  Church^of  Chrisi,  m  its  purely  ecclesiastical  action,  to 
tlie  surveillance  or  nivislon  of  the  civil  power."  They 
seemed  to  regard  their  "ecclesiaslicai  action  as  belonging 
to  God  and  not  to  Caesar."  And  then  they  take  a  boid 
st'ind  against  tliis  expected  interference,  and  make  a  bold 
ileclaration  :  "We  are  bound,  and  we  iiope  prepared  to 
render  to  Ciesar  all  things  that  are  Caesar's,  but  we  are  also 
bo'jnd  and  resoh-ed  nccer  to  surrender  to  Ccesar  the  I  kings 
ir/iich  are  only  God's.'" 

The  Reformers  attempted  to  inculcate  such  sentiments 
among  their  [)eople.  The  Editor  of  tim  "  VV^^tchman  of 
the  South,"  says  :  "No  court  in  any  ot  tliese  States  can 
ever  l)e  brought  to  review  or  reverse  ecclcsiasticii  decis- 
ions."— "lis  (tlie  Assembly's)  decisions  can  be  rjview-d 
or  reversed  by  no  other  court  on  earth."  These  senti- 
ments were  cojiied  into  the  Western  Presbyteiian  Herald, 
of  .hme  2Sth,  183S. 

Tiie  doctrine  set  forth  in  Dr.  Piiillips'  papef,  is,  that  the 
reform  party  is  the  church,  and  that  the  constitutional  par* 
ty  ii.'id  forfeited  tlltir  claim  to  any  thing  belonging  to  the 
(rburch.  This  is  the  ianguase:  "Whereas,  a  portion  of 
what  has  heretofore  betn  called  tlie  Presbyterian  Church 
have  voluntarily  gone  out  from  u-<,  and  by  their  secession 
ana  separate  organization,  have  forfeited  in  law,  all  iheir 
title  to  any  of  the  piO[)erly  belonging  to  llie  Presbyterian 
Church." 

It  will  be  seen  th'it  the  excision  is  called  avolunlary  go- 
ing out  ;  and  the  division  of  the  boiy,  a  secession.  But 
that  party  hid  a  strange  way  of  naming  things;  the  im- 
propriety of  which  is  often  as  manifest  as  it  would  be  for 
Reformers  in  a  church  to  call  themselves //;e  Old  School. 

But  in  Dr.  Phillips'  pipor  it  was  admitted  that  the  Con- 
stitutional party  had  a  title  to  property;  but  as  the  Re- 
formers would  have  a  separation,  so  now    they  niu$t  have 


171 

all  the  propeity;  for  says  the  paper,  tie  Constitutionalists 
••have  forfeited  in  law,  all  their  title  to  any  of  the  prop- 
erty belonging  to  tlie  Presbyterian  church." 

This  policy  of  claiming  all  the  property,  as  appears  from 
Mv.  Breckinridge's  paper,  was  to  extend  even  to  the  e.\- 
cinded  Synods,  in  that  paper,  not  only  majorities  of 
churches,  but  even  minorities  are  "hereby  ad'vised,  not  only 
to  take  steps  for  their  early  union  with  our  [reform]  body, 
but  also  to  protect  themselves  in  the  exercise  of  their  eccle- 
siastical right*',  /o  secure  their  corporate  properly  against 
the  new  sect,  and  the  ruinous  principles  upon  which  their 
proceedings  go." 

Here  are  surely  some  strange  features  in  the  policy  of 
the  New  Basis  sect.  They  will  have  division,  and  '"to ef- 
fect this  separation,"  they  cast  out  \Vhole  Synods  and  Pres- 
byteries and  churches,  and  then  advise  "minorities,"  how- 
ever small,  to  st-^ize  upon  the  funds — "to  secure  their  corpo- 
rate property  against  the  new  sect."  Then  they  proclaiin 
that  their  proceedings  are  "'■ecclesiastical,''^  that  they  be- 
long to  the  church,  and  the  church  belongs  to  God,  and  to 
permit  the  civil  courts  to  review  their  proceedings  would  be 
subjecting  the  church  of  Christ  to  the  surveillance  of  the 
civil  power;  and  then  they  resolve  "never  to  surrender  to 
Csesar  the  things  that  are  only  God's." 

it  will  here  be  seen  in  what  a  state  of  embarrassment  the 
Constitutional  party  found  thrmselves.  When  the  divis- 
ion took  p'ace,  all  the  chartered  funds  of  the  Assembly 
were  in  the  hands  of  the  reform  party,  and  they  were 
advising  their  viinorities  of  Synods,  Piesbyterics  and 
churches  to  secure  all  the  property.  And  when  the  con- 
stitutional party  declared  their  intention  to  let  the  civil 
courts  decide,  whether  one  pnty  might  thus  disfranchise 
anoihei-,  th"^  Rrformers  cried  out,  '-Oh,  vou  must  not  goto 
law — it  will  injure  religion!"  The  injured  party  then 
said  :  "Wedifl'er  about  rights  and  property — who  shall  de- 
cide ?"  The  Reformers  were  ready  to  say,  "  TFe  will  dp- 
cide — you  are  seceders — ^just  go  along  about  your  busi. 
ness — you  have  forfeited  all  title  to  your  pro|)erty — yo:. 
if  you  will  go  off  right  peaceably,  we  will  give  you,  as  a 
charity,  what  wo  can  spare.  The  times,  however,  are 
hard — the  Vicksburg  Bank  is  broke,  and  you  must  not  ex- 
pect much,     indeed,  the  'I'rustees  of  the  General  Assern- 


172 

illy  only  lioUl  some  tliree  hundred  thousand  dollars — hard- 
ly worth  dividing — and  as  you  care  lujt  little  for  the  stuff, 
would  it  not  show  your  groat  disinterestedness  just  to  agree, 
not  only  that  the  funds  of  the  Assembly,  but  all  the  Theo- 
logical Seminaries,  parsonages,  town  losts,  church  edifi- 
ces, d:c.,  of  the  whole  body  should  belong  to  our  party. 
Indeed,  you  must  submit  to  our  terms,  and  toour  decision  ; 
for  we  do  not  intend  that  our  proceedings  shall  be  review- 
ed by  the  civil  courts.  Ecclesiastical  proceedings  are 
God's,  and  we  are  resolved  never  to  surrender  to  Cceear  the 
ihi)i£;sichich,  are  only  God^s.^* 

To  these  terms  the  other  party  were  unwilling  to  submit. 
And  whether  such  a  policy  as  the  Reformers  attempted  to 
carry  out  should  have  been  submitted  to  by  the  other  por- 
tion of  the  church,  is  a  question  that  men  may  decide  dif- 
ferently. 


( 1-3) 


CHAPTER  XXIL 

THS  GREAT  REFORM  OKDINANCE  OF  1838. 


The  most  important  measure  of  tlie  New  Biisis  Assem- 
bly of  1838,  was  ihe  passage  of  the  three  grt'at  acts  "  for 
the  general  reform  and  pacification  of  ihechurch."  Omit- 
ting the  third,  being  of  a  local  bearing,  we  present  tlie 
first  two  : 

REPORT 

Of  the   Committee  on  the  State  of  the  church,  as  adopted 
Mai)  30,  1838. 

"  The  Presbyterian  church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  finds  it»elf,  by  the  providence  of  God,  in  the 
course  of  now  and  unprecedented  events,  in  a  position  of 
great  difficulty,  novelty,  and  importance.  Tiie  church, 
led  and  supported  by  the  God  of  Zion,  has,  within  the 
last  few  years,  commenced  a  great  reform,  which  has  be- 
come indispensable  to  its  very  existence,  as  organized  on 
the  principles  of  the  doctrin'3  and  order  of  its  own  consti- 
tution. The  General  Assembly  of  1837  carried  forward 
this  reform,  in  several  measures  of  great  and  momentous; 
importance,  for  the  details  of  which  we  refer  to  its  records. 
The  voice  of  the  church,  uttered  in  a  multitude  of  forms, 
and  especiiilly  by  the  commissioners  to  the  present  Gene- 
ral Assembly,  is  clearly  and  decisively  in  favor  of  con- 
summating the  reform  thus  auspiciously  commenced.  But 
a  portion  of  the  ministers  and  ruling  elders,  sent  to  this 
Assembly,  forgetting,  or  violating,  as  we  apprehend,  their 
duty  to  God  and  to  the  church,  and  choosing  to  depart  from 
us,  have,  in  connection  with  other  persons  not  in  the  com- 
15* 


174 

inEMiion  of  our  church,  constituted  a  new  ecclesiastieal 
ergnnizalion,  which  they  improperly  lUid  unjustly  assume 
lo  call  the  true  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  in  the  United  States  of  America.  'Jo  meet  the 
jiresent  crisis  at  once  with  the  temper  and  s,jirit  becoming 
our  high  vocation,  and  to  persevere  in  it,  niid  carry  safely 
through  it,  the  church  committed  in  so  great  a  degree  to 
our  guidance,  in  times  of  so  much  trial  and  disorder,  the 
ihrec  following  acts  are  now  ordained  and  established  : 

ACT  I. 

Sec.  I.  That  in  the  present  state  of  the  church,  all  the 
Piesbyteries  in  our  connection  ought  to  take  order,  and  are 
hertb-y  enjoined  to  take  such  order  as  is  consistent  with 
this  Rjinutc,  for  the  genorfil  reform  and  pacification  of 
the  church,  and  tliey  are  directed  so  to  do,  some  time  be- 
tween the  dissolution  of  the  present  General  Assembly, 
and  ihe  fall  meetings  of  the  Synods,  either  nt  stated  ov  pro 
re  vain  meetings  of  the  Presbyteries,  os  shall  seem  most 
advisable  to  tliem  respectively.  And  those  Presbyteries, 
whose  commissioners  to  this  Assembly  have  united  with 
others  in  the  formation  of  anotlier  Assembly,  in  the  pres- 
ence of  this,  and  with  tumult  and  violence  in  open  con- 
tempt of  it  :  or  who  have  advised  the  formation  of  said 
body,  or  adhered  to,  or  attended  it,  as  members  thereof, 
after  its  formation,  renounced,  or  refused  to  recognise  this 
true  and  only  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  in  the  United  Stales  of  America,  are  hereby  re- 
quired to  take  proper  order  in  regard  to  their  said  com- 
missioners. 

Stc.  II.  In  case  the  majority  of  any  Presljytery,  whose 
commissioners  have  acted  as  aforesaid,  shall  take  proper 
o-der  touching  their  conduct  in  the  premise*,  and  are  wil- 
ling, upon  the  basis  of  the  Assemblies  of  1837  and  1838, 
to  adhere  to  the  Presbyterian  church  in  the  United  States — 
then,  and  in  that  case,  the  acts  of  their  said  commission- 
ers, in  advising,  creating,  or  unitng  with  said  session,  or 
in  refusing  to  attend  on  this  Assembly,  a?  the  case  may  be, 
shall  not  prejudice  the  righ's  or  interests,  or  aflect  the  in- 
tegrity of  said  Presbytery,  or  its  union  with  li)c  Presbyte- 
lian  church  in  the  Uniied  States  of  America,  as  an  inte- 
gral portion  theieof. 


175 

Sec.  III.  In  case  the  majority  of  any  Presbytery  shalf 
refuse,  or  neglect  to  take  proper  order  in  regard  to  its  se- 
ceding commissioners,  or  shall  approve  their  conduct,  or 
adhere  to  the  new  sect  they  have  created,  or  shall  decline 
or  fail  to  adhere  to  the  Prt-sbyterian  church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  upon  the  said  Iwisis  of  1837  and  1838, 
for  the  reform  of  the  church — then,  and  in  that  case,  the 
minority  of  said  Prcsb}tery  shall  be  held  and  considered  to 
be  the  true  Presbytery  :  and  shall  continue  the  succession 
of  the  Presbytery  by  its  name  and  style,  and  from  the 
rendition  of  the  err&neous  and  schismatical  decision,  which 
is  the  test  in  the  case,  be  the  Presbytery  ;  and  if  suffi- 
ciently numerous  to  perform  presbyterial  acts,  shall  go 
forward  with  all  the  proper  acts  and  functions  of  the  Pres- 
bytery. 

Sec.  IV.  In  case  the  minority  of  any  Presbytery 
should  be  too  small  to  constitute  a  Presbytery,  and  perfom 
presbyterial  act«t,  said  minority  shall  remain  in  its  existing 
Stat?  until  the  next  subsequent  meeting  of  the  Svnod  to 
which  it  properly  belongs,  which  will  then  take  order  on 
the  subject.  Otherwise,  there  is  a  possibility  that  several 
Synods  might  be  unable  to  constitute,  if  majorities  of  part 
of  their  Presbyteries  should  adhere  to  the  secession,  and 
the  minorities  frttach  themselves  to  other  Presbyteries  or 
several  unite  into  one,  before  the  Synods  meet. 

Sec  V.  The  principles  of  this  act  shall  apply  to 
churches,  with  their  majorities  and  minorities — and  lo^ 
church  sessions,  as  far  as  they  are  applicable.  And  the 
Presbyteries  are  hereby  required  so  to  exercise  their  watch 
and  care,  that  as  fPvT  as  possible,  all  the  churches  may  be 
preserved,  and  where  unhappily  this  cannot  be  done,  then 
that  the  minorities  in  the  sessions  and  churches  shall  be 
cared  for,  and  dealt  with  on  the  general  principles  now 
laid  down. 

The  Assembly  is  fully  sensible  that  in  divided  Presby- 
teries and  churches,  every  thing  depends,  under  God,  upon 
the  promptitude,  firmness,  wisdom  and  moderation  of  the 
friends  of  Christ,  in  this  great  crisis.  In  this  conviction, 
the  whole  of  that  part  of  the  subject  which  relates  to 
churches  and  private  christians,  is  esjiecially  commended 
to  the  christian  zeal,  prudence  and  fidelity  of  the  Presby- 
teries and  church  sessions.     In  regard  to  the  temporal  iii> 


176! 

terests  of  the  chu relics,  and  the  difficulties  which  may 
arise  on  their  account,  the  Assembly  advise  that,  on  the 
one  hand,  great  liberality  and  generosity  should  mark  the 
whole  conduct  of  our  people,  and  especially  in  cases  where 
our  majorities  are  very  small  :  while  on  the  other  hand,  it 
would  advise,  that  providential  advantages,  and  important 
rigiits,  ought  not,  in  any  case,  to  be  lightly  thrown  away. 

Skc.  VI.  it  is  enjoined  on  Ihe  Synods  to  take  order  on 
this  subject — to  see  that  the  principles  here  laid  down  are 
duly  enforced — to  take  care  that  the  Presbyteries  act  as 
truth  and  duty  require  in  the  premises— to  make  such 
needful  modifications  in  the  Presbyteries  as  their  altered 
circumstances  may  require — and  to  promote  by  all  proper 
meins  the  speedy  pacification  of  the  chuiches,  by  deliver- 
ing and  saving  them  from  the  leaven  of  lieresy,  disorder 
and  schism,  which  having  so  long  worked  among  them,  is 
at  length  ready,  by  Cod's  mercy,  to  be  purged  away. 

Sec,  VII.  The  Synods  in  all  cases  shall  be  considered 
lawfully  constituted  only  when  formed  by  or  out  of  those 
Presbyteries  recognised  as  true  Presbyteries  by  this  As- 
sembly, according  to  the  true  tenor  and  intent  of  this  act. 

ACT  II. 

Whereas,  the  act  of  the  Assembly  of  June  5th,  1837, 
declaring  the  three  Synods  of  Utica,  Geneva,  and  Gene- 
see, to  be  out  of  the  ecclesiastical  connection  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  made 
ample  provision  for  the  return  into  the  bosom  of  the 
church  of  every  minister  and  church,  truly  Presbyterian 
in  doctrine  and  order,  as  well  within  the  bounds  of  the 
three  aforesaid  Synods,  as  within  tiiose  of  the  Synod  of 
the  Western  Reserve  : 

And  whereas,  it  is  represented  to  this  Assenibly,  that 
in  addition  to  those  who  have  embraced  this  invitation  and 
provision  of  the  aforesaid  act,  there  are  others  who  have 
held  bick,  and  are  still  waiting  on  the  developments  of 
Providence  : 

And  whereas,  it  was  never  the  intention  of  the  General 
Assembly  to  cause  any  sound  Presbyterian  to  be  perma- 
nently separated  from  our  connection,  but  it  is,  and  always 
was  the  desire  of  the  church,  that  all  who  really  embrace 


177 

our  doctrine,  love  our  order,  and  are  willing  to  conform  to 
oar  discipline,  should  unite  themselves  with  us  : 

And  whereas,  moreover,  the  General  Assembly  has  no 
idea  of  narrowing,  but  would  rather  expand  its  geogra- 
phical limits,  so  as  to  unite  in  bonds  of  the  most  intimate 
fellowship  every  portion  of  our  beloved  country,  and  every 
evangelical  christian  like  minded  with  ourselves  :  it  is 
therefore,  resolved  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  that  it 
be  recommended-r-^ 

1.  That  those  ministers  and  churches,  living  within  the 
geographical  limits  of  the  Synods  of  Western  Reserve, 
Geneva,  Utica,aiid  Genesee,  who  are  willing  to  adhere  to 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States,  on  the  ba- 
sis of  the  acts  of  the  Assemblies  of  1837  and  1838,  for 
the  general  reform  of  the  church,  take  steps  for  the  imme- 
diate organization  of  as  many  Presbyteries  as  there  are 
minigterfs  and.  churches,  such  as  are  above  described,  suffi- 
ciently numerous  to  constitute,  so  that  the  whole  number 
of  Presbyteries  thus  formed,  shall  not  exceed  one  Presby- 
tery for  each  of  the  aforesaid  Synods  ;  and  so  that  the 
territory  of  the  Western  Reserve  shall  in  no  case  be  added 
to  that  in  Western  New  York — and  in  case  only  two  Pres- 
byteries can  be  constituted  on  the  ground  occupied  by  the 
three  Synods  of  Utica,  Geneva,  and  Genesee — then  that 
whole  territory  shall  be  divided  between  them.  And  in 
case  but  one  Presbytery  can  be  constituted,  then  the  whoio 
territory  shall  attach  to  it.  In  regard  to  the  Western  Re-. 
serve,  it-is  desired  that  a  single  J  rest)ytery  be  formed  as 
soon  as  convenient,  to  embrace  the  whole  of  that  ground. 

2.  The  ministers  and  churches  intended  by  this  act, 
will  hold  such  mutuil  correspondence  as  thev  shall  deem 
needful,  either  by  general  meeting  or  otherwise  ;  and  then 
meet,  at  such  convenient  time  and  place,  as  may  be  agreed 
on  by  those  who  are  to  be  embraced  in  the  same  Presby- 
tery, and  then  and  there  constitute  themselves  in  a  regular, 
orderly,  and  christian  manner,  intoa  Presbytery  under  the. 
care  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America, 

3.  If  as  many  as  three  presbyteries  can  be  convenientr 
ly  formed  in  Western  New  York,  it  will  be  orderly  for 
them,  as  soon  as  possible   thereafter,  to  unite  and  consti- 


178 

tute  thelnselves  into  a  Synod,  i;pon  the  principles  indica- 
ted in  this  Act  ;  and  such  Synod,  if  fornKid,  shall  cover 
the  entire  territory  heretofore  occupied  by  the  three  Synods 
of  Utica,  Geneva,  and  Genesee.  But  in  case  only  one  or 
two  Presbyteries  can  be  formed,  then  application  shall  be 
made  by  it,  or  them,  for  admission  under  the  care  and  in- 
to the  bosom  of  such  Synod,  now  in  our  connection,  as 
shall  be  most  convenient  and  natural.  And  the  Presby- 
tery on  the  Western  Reserve,  if  one  should  be  formed, 
will  adopt  the  same  line  of  conduct.  AnJ  any  Synod,  tj 
which  application  may  be  thus  made  by  any  Presbytery, 
shall  take  immediate  order  to  accomplish  the  ends  of  this 
act.  And  it  is  considered,  that  any  Presbytery  or  Synod, 
formed  in  pursuance  of  these  directions,  shall  have  full 
jKjwer  to  perform  all  Presbylerial  or  Synodical  acts,  agree- 
ably to  the  Constitution  of  the  Church." 

The  reader  ought  to  notice  particularly  a  few  items  in 
this  document,  which  is  to  be  considered  as  a  part  of  the 
foundation  upon  which  the  New  Basis  Assembly  rests. 

They  found  tliemselves  "  in  a  position  of  great  diffi- 
cAilty,  novelty  and  importance" — in  the  midst  of  "  a  great 
reform."  They  say  :  "  The  General  Assembly  of  1837 
carried  forward  lids  reform"  in  the  excinding  acts,  and 
tbat  now  the  voice  of  the  church  "  is  clearly  and  decisive- 
ly in  favor  of  consummating  the  reform  thus  aus|)iciously 
commenced." 

Any  one,  however,  must  notice  tiie  absurd  and  incon- 
sistent statements  made  by  the  New  Basis  Assembly  in 
their  ^^  position  of  great  difficulty  and  novelty."  Here, 
in  the  Reform  Ordinance,  they  would  seem  to  regret  the 
division  of  the  church,  and  la)'  great  g'lilt  at  the  door 
of  the  other  party  lor  "  forgetting,  or  violating,  as  we 
appreherid,  their  duty  to  God  and  the  church,  and  choosing 
to  depart  from  us."  Now,  can  any  one  believe  they  were 
in  earnest  in  this  regret,  or  that  they  were  sorry  the  "  New 
School"  had  separated  from  them  ?  No.  This  was  an 
attempt  to  impute  their  own  guilt,  in  "  fogetting.  or  viola- 
ting cieir  duty  to  God  and  the  church"  to  the  innocent. 

But  that  they  felt  no  regret,  is  evident  from  what  they 
say  in  the  latter  part  of  the  sixth  section  of  the  first  Act. 
They  there  enjoin  it  upon  Synods  to  promote  the  interests 
of  their   churches  "  by  delivering  and    saving  them  from 


179 

the  leaven  of  heresy,  disorder  and  schism,  wliich  h-winrr 
so  long  worked  among  them,  is  at  length  ready,  by  God's 
mercy,  to  be  purged  away.''  Could  th^y  regret  that  a 
tiling  sliould  be  done,  which,  "  i y  GocVs  ??ie;Tj/,"  was  ready 
to  purge  away  the  heresy,  disorder  and  scliism  which  had 
so  long  worked  among  tliem  T'  The  Reformers  think  tlie 
separation  wrong  1  Tlicy  regret  it  ?  No.  They  labored 
for  it  for  year-5.  In  the  Pastoral  Letter  of  the  same  As- 
sembly, their  language  is,  "  Kejoicing  as  we  do,  that  this 
separation  is  thus  far  edbcted." 

Nor  do  they,  in  their  Pastoral  Letter,  seem  to  charge 
the  Constitutional  party  with  "  violating  their  duly  to  God 
and  his  cliurch"  in  separating  from  them.  On  this  point 
they  say  :  ♦'  If  the  minority  cannot  in  conscience  submit 
to  the  measures  or  doctrines  of  the  majority,  it  is  their 
ri'^kt  and  duly  to  separate."  Again  tliey  say  :  "  The 
church  is  now  fairly  divided  into  two  separate  and  inde- 
pendent denominations."  Did  they  complain  of  this  sepa- 
ration ?  No.  They  say:  "  We  only  complain  as  to  the 
mnnner  in  which  it  was  effected." 

Tiie  third  section  of  the  first  Act  was  regarded  as  the 
most  odious  portion  of  the  document.  It  was  offi-nsive  to 
many  who  were  inclined  to  adhere  to  the  New  Basis  As- 
sem'ily.  Adherence  was  required  "  upon  the  said  basis 
of  1S37  and  183S.  for  the  reform  nf  Ihe  c/nirch."  And 
this  adneience  upon  this  "  basis^'  was  to  be  "//«e  test  in  the 
case.'''' 

Tliis  ordinance  was  to  apply  even  to  churches  as  well 
as  to  Synods  and  Presbyteiies.  In  section  five  they  say  : 
''  The  principles  of  this  act  shall  apply  to  churches  with 
t'.ieir  majorities  and  minorities." 

The  Constitutional  party  argued,  that  this  was  a  "  neio 
hasis^^  and  a  '••  new  test.''''  And  that  such  an  ordinance, 
having  the  nature  of  "regulations,"  or  "constitutional 
rales,"  was  in  the  face  of  Presbyterianism  and  the  con- 
stitution of  the  church,  and  especially,  because  it  had  not 
been  transmitted  to  the  Presbyteries  for  their  approval. 
Indeed,  it  was  a  new  measure,  to  say  the  least  of  it.  The 
ministers  and  elders  and  members  said  they  had  joined  the 
Presbyterian  church  upon  the  basis  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith  and  Book  of  Discipline.  The  Constitutional  party 
claimed  to  be  upon  that  basis,  and   insisted  that  the  other 


iSO 

party,  by  planting  themselves  upon  "  the  Basis  of  1837 
and  '1838,"'  had  left  the  old  basis. 

What  the  party  meant  by  the  act  is  uncertain.  Some 
supposed  they  required  approval  of  the  reform  measures 
of  1837  and  1838.  This,  to  be  sure,  was  a  very  natural 
conclusion.  Upon  what  basis  does  a  man  join  any  socie- 
ty ?  Upon  the  basis  of  its  constitution.  Upon  what  ba- 
sis does  a  man  belong  to  a  church  ?  Upon  the  basis  of 
her  constitution,  and  because  he  approves  ot  herfailli  and 
discipline.  Upon  wliat  basis  does  the  Episco[)alian  adhere 
to  his  church  ?  Or  the  Methodist  to  his  ?  Or  the  Pres- 
byterian to  his  1  Surely  upon  the  basis  of  the  Confession 
of  Faitli  and  Book  of  Discipline.  And  why  upon  this 
basis  ?     Because  he  appivixs  if. 

Taking  this  common  sense  view  of  the  subject,  the  As- 
sembly required  adherence  upon  tliis  new  basis,  evidently 
expecting  that  those  who  approved  "  the  basis^^  would 
stand  on  it,  by  coming  up  to  "  the  test  int/ie  case  ,"  and 
tliav  those  who  did  not  approve  would  not  adhere. 

But  it  was  soon  ascertained  by  the  party,  that  if  the 
approval  of  the  reform  measures  were  required,  it  would 
rapidly  thin  their  ranks;  for  it  may  be  confidently  assurt- 
ed  that  only  a  small  portion  of  those  who  went  with  the 
Reformers,  approve  the  New  Ba;is.  Approval,  therefore, 
was  not  generally  demanded  by  those  Synods  and  Presby- 
teries which  took  action  on  the  subject. 

The  history  of  those  times  siiows  that  the  reform  ordi- 
nances were  not  every  where  understood  alike.  On  the 
subject  of  app7~oval,  the  Princeton  Repertory  says  .  "  We 
regret  the  use  of  the  language  employed,  liecause  it  is 
*  amhiguous.^  On  the  supposition  that  the  act  required 
approval,  they  say  :  "  We  readily  admit  that  if  this  inter- 
pretation be  correct,  the  act  complained  of  would  be  «»» 
constitutional  and  tyrannical. 

It  is  however  true,  in  some  cases,  approval  was  de- 
manded, and  adherence  upon  the  neiv  basis  was  made  "the 
test''''  of  Presbyterianism.  The  majority  of  the  Presby- 
tery of  Erie,  belonging  to  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh,  were 
informed  by  the  Synod  that  there  wou  Id  be,  no  difficulty 
in  their  case,  if  they  would  now  decla  re  their  adherence 
on  the  basis  of  lb37  and  1838."  The  Presbytery  an- 
swered :    "  We   are    willing  to   adhere  to  the   Synod  of 


181 

I'ittsliurgh  and  the  General  Assembly  by  which  it  is  gov- 
erned, without  having  ourselves  bound  by  any  addilionnl 
pledge  whatever."  Whereupon,  Synod  "  Resolved,  that 
they  do  not  consider  said  claimants  as  having  complied 
with  the  requirements  of  Synod." 

In  this  case,  the  majority  of  the  Presbytery  v.'as  cut  ofi\ 
Why  ?  Because  they  were  unwilling  to  adhere  on  the 
basis  of  the  Cjnfession  of  Faith  and  Book  of  Discipline  ? 
No.  But  because  they  could  not  approve  the  new  test, 
and  were  unwilling  to  adhere  upon  the  neic  basis. 

The  Synod  of  Pittsburgh,  in  their  Pastoral  Letter  of 
1838,  thus  interpret  the  great  ordinance  :  "  By  the  pro- 
vision of  that  act,  the  Assembly  says,  if  a  majority  of  a 
Presbytery  approoe  and  adhere  to  us,  we  recognise  you 
as  a  Presbytery  in  our  connection,  &c.  If  you  do  not 
approve  and  adhere,  we  compel  you  not,  but  leave  you  to 
act  as  your  best  judgment  dictates.  If  only  a  mino:  ity 
approve  and  adhere,  that  minority  we  do  not  disown,  but  if 
sutficient  in  number,  we  recognise  you  as  a  Presbytery." 
See  Manifesto,  p.  16. 

On  the  5th  of  September,  1838,  the  Presbytery  of  Vin- 
cennes  enjoined  it  upon  the  church  session  of  Evansville, 
to  take  prompt  measures  in  reference  to  their  elder,  who 
had  been  bold  enough  to  vote,  and  even  protest  against  the 
acts  of  the  General  Assembly  ;  declaring,  at  the  sime 
lime,  that  those  only  should  thereafter  constitute  said 
church,  who  sliall  "  approve  of  the  acts  of  the  Assembly." 

At  the  same  time,  the  above  named  Presbytery  withheld 
from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Morrison  liberty  to  preach  within  their 
bounds,  "  because  he  refused  to  give  us  any  acknowledg- 
ment of  his  approval  of  tho-e  operations  of  the  Assembly 
for  the  reform  of  the  church."     See  Manifesto,  p.  1.5 

On  the  4th  of  December,  1833,  the  following  measure 
was  proposed  at  a  meeting  of  Charleston  Union  Presby- 
tery : 

"  Resolved.  Tliat  the  roll  be  now  called,  and  each  mem- 
ber, without  discussion,  do  declare  whether  he  can  ap- 
prove  the  reform  measures  of  the  General  Assembly  of 
1837  ;  and  that  those  who  answer  in  the  affirmative,  ac- 
cording to  the  provision  of  the  last  General  Assembly,  do 
constitute  the  Presbytery  of  Charleston  Union,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Presbyterian  church."  The  moderator  re- 
16 


182 

fusing  to  put  the  question,  a  small  minority,  in  obedience, 
as  they  say,  "  to  an  injunction  of  the  Supreme  Judicatory 
of  our  church,"  declared  themselves  the  Charleston  Union 
Pre.shytery,  to  the  excision  of  the  majority.  And  this  said 
sm;ill  minority  is  to  this  day  recognised  as  tlie  Presbytery 
bj'  the  Reform  Synod  and  New  Basis  Assembly.  See 
JManifesto,  p.  15. 

it  was  indeed  urged  by  the  Constitutional  party,  that 
the  reform  ordinance  shouldered  aside  entirely  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith.  The  New  Basis  party  had  asserted  that 
they  were  contending  alone  for  the  truth  and  order  of  the 
church.  In  the  first  Act  of  this  ordinance,  they  speak  of 
the  "  heresy  and  disorder"  of  the  churches.  And  it  might 
have  been  supposed  that  they  would  have  proposed  a  more 
rigid  subscrijHion  to  the  Confession  of  Faitii,  or  ordained 
a  closer  examination  on  theology.  But  this  was  not  done. 
And  when,  according  to  their  Pastoral  Letter:  "the 
church  is  now  fairly  divided  into  two  separate  and  inde- 
pendent denominations,"  upon  what  basis  do  the  Reform- 
ers require  adherence  to  their  new  denomination  1  Was 
it  upon  the  basis  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  ?  Not  one 
■word  of  this.  The  Confession  is  shouldered  aside,  and 
a  new  foundation  is  laid  in  the  great  ordinance. 

Suppose  some  of  those  Synods  or  Presbyteries  in  which 
the  ''  heresy  and  disorder''^  existed,  had  been  called  up. 
Were  doctrinal  tests  to  be  presented  1  Not  one  word  of 
it.  And  no  matter  how  high  "  the  haven  of  heresy  and 
disorder''^  had  worked,  they  were  to  be  acknowledged  as 
sound  presbyterians,  according  to  the  great  ordinance, 
provided  they  would  adhere  upon  the  ISeio  Basis.  The 
object,  therefore,  judging  from  "  the  test  in  the  case.,''''  was 
not  to  secure  men  who  loved  the  truth,  but  who  would  an- 
swer the  purposes  of  the  party. 

In  this  respect  the  Constitutional  party  seemed  to  be  the 
most  consistent.  They  required  adherence  upon  the  basis 
of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  while  the  Reformers  required 
adherence  upon  "  the  basis  of  1837  and  1838."  Now 
which  of  these  "  two  separate  and  independent  denomina- 
tions'''' has  the  best  claim  to  the  name  of  Old  School  is 
left  for  others  to  decide. 


(   1S3  ) 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 


UNSUCCESSFUL   EFFORTS   FOR  AN   AMICABLE  ADJUST- 
MEiNT. 


After  the  church  was  "divided  into  two  separate  and  in- 
dependent denominations,"  each  party  claimed  to  be  the 
Presbyterian  church.  The  New  Basis  denomination  wish- 
ed to  claim  ea;c/'Msit;e/?/  the  name,  privileges  and  funds  of 
the  church.  The  Constitutional  party  were  unwilling  to 
admit  this  claim.  Such  a  surrender  would  have  been  a 
virtual  acknowledgment,  that  they  had  seceded  from  the 
church  of  their  tenderest  regard — an  abandonment  of  ec- 
clesiastical rights — a  relinquishment  of  funds  and  proper- 
ty bequeathed  to  ihem  by  their  fathers  for  sacred  purpo- 
ses. By  such  a  course  they  would  not  only  have  forfeit- 
ed their  share  in  the  chartered  funds  of  the  General  As- 
sembly, but  their  theological  seminaries,  colleges,  acade- 
mies, parsonages,  town  lots,  church  edifices,  and  even  the 
grave  yards,  where  sleep  their  fathers  and  mothers,  hus- 
bands and  wives,  brothers  and  sisters,  sons  and  daughters. 

In  such  a  state  of  things,  common  sense  and  comrnoa 
honesty  would  say,  the  parties  ought  amicably  to  have 
adjusted  their  differences,  and  tu  have  divided  the  property, 
so  that  there  should  have  been  no  law  suits  between  t!io 
parties  in  the  Assembly,  or  in  Synods,  Presbyteries  or 
churches.  But  this  was  not  done.  The  Constitutional 
party  were  oliliged  either  to  yield  unconditionally  to  those 
who  had  attempted  to  oppress  them,  or  "appeal  to  Cresar." 
They  preferred  the  latter,  for  which  they  have  been  great- 
ly censurtd  by  their  former  brethren. 

Indeed,  in  no  part  of  the  controversy,  has  the  conduct 
of  the  Constitutional  party  been  more  fearfully  misrepre- 
sented than  in  this.     The  New   Basis  party  have  tried  lo 


184 

make  tho  impression,  that  they  were  always  ready  for  a 
friendly  anongemcnt.  In  their  Pa>tc)ral  Letter  of  l!538, 
they  inlimute  that  the  Constitutional  party  were  averse  to 
on  amicable  arrangement,  and  then  say,  "had  this  course 
bt-cn  adopted,  we  were  willing  to  concur  in  any  reasona- 
ble plan  for  the  adjustment  of  any  unsettled  claims  wliich 
iiave  apjjeitained  to  the  case." 

Greater  misrepresentations  than  this  were  made  in  some 
of  the  New  Bnsis  newspapers  in  thai  day.  The  Editor  of 
tiie  Western  Presbyterian  Herald,  of  June  6lh,  1839, 
speaking  of  his  party  in  1837  and  1838.  says:  "The  Old 
School,  though  a  decided  nnijority  [of  six  in  two  hundred 
and  fifty]  then  oflered  the  otfier  party  every  farthing  of 
j)roperiy  which  tiiey  claimed.  In  1838,  they  were  still 
willing  and  desirous  to  liave  an  amicable  adjustment  of  all 
property  claims  ;  but  nothing  would  satisfy  the  New  School 
but  an  unchristian  appeal  to  the  civil  courts." 

It  is  necessary,  therefore,  that  the  history  and  charac- 
ter of  those  etfoi  ts  for  "an  amicable  adjustment"  should  be 
fairly  examined,  that  the  impartial  may  see  who  "were 
willing  and  desirous  to  have  an  amicable  adjustment,"  and 
who  were  to  blame  for  the  'unchristian  jippeal  to  the  civil 
courts." 

In  the  Assembly  of  1837,  it  was  well  understood  by  both 
parties,  that  the  Reformers  were  determined  on  the  divis- 
ion of  the  church.  Such  an  event  the  other  party  had 
ever  tried  to  avert,  when  in  the  majority,  as  well  as  when 
in  the- minority.  But  when  they  perceived  that  it  could 
not  be  avoided,  tli^y  consented  to  it.  Tfie  proposition, 
however,  for  the  division,  came  from  the  Reform  party. 
A  committee  of  ten  on  the  state  of  the  church  was  ap- 
pointed— five  fiom  each  party. 

The  papers  wliich  passed  between  the  two  parties  of  the 
committee  are  too  lengthy  to  insert  here.  They  can  be 
seen  in  the  nesvspapers  of  that  dav  and  in  the  reports  of 
the  chuich  case.  From  the  reports  of  the  committee  to 
the  Assembly,  it  will  be  seen,  that  they  agreed  upon  all  im- 
j)ortant  points,  excejit  such  as  were  connected  immediate- 
iy  or  remotely  with  the  charier. 

They  agreed  that  the  Assembly  should  be  divided  into 
two  bodies — the  Reform  Assembl}'  to  be  called  the  General 
As&emblif  of  the  Presbyter ian  church  in  the  United  States 


185 

of  America,  and  the  Constitutional  x\ssembly,  Ike  General 
Assembly  of  the  American  Preshyterian  church. 

They  agreed  also  in  reference  to  the  funds,  institutions, 
boards,  records,  &c.  But  they  ditfercd  on  this  point.  Tiie 
Reformers  wanted  the  division  consummated  on  the  spot. 
The  other  party  said  they  had  no  authority  from  the  co!i- 
siitution  of  the  churcii,  or  from  the  Presbyteries  which 
they  represented,  to  dismcniber  the  body.  But  they  were 
willing  to  unite  with  the  Keformers  in  recommending  the 
proposed  plan  of  division  to  the  Preshyleries,  that  they 
might,  the  next  year,  give  their  sanction,  and  ratify  what 
they  were  proposing.  Indeed,  according  to  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  church,  this  committee  of  ten,  or  even  the 
whole  Assembly  had  no  more  right  to  divide  the  church 
than  the  committee  of  vvays  and  means  in  Congress  has  to 
divide  the  Union.  And  such  an  attempt  would  have  been, 
in  ecclesiastii-a!  or  civil  law,  null  and  void,  in  any  State. 
without  th ?  consent  of  tlie  Presbyteries. 

And  not  only  did  the  Reformers  want  the  plan  togo  into 
cflect  then,  but  they  insisted  on  holding  on  to  the  charter. 
whh  h  would  in  any  contingency  make  them  secure,  but 
would  leave  their  brethren  without  any  security  except 
good  promises. 

We  have  only  room  for  the  reports  of  the  committee. 
The  papers  alluded  to,  which  was  passed  between  the  two 
porlions  of  the  committee,  may  be  seen  in  McElroy';> 
Report,  pp.  51 — 54.  ^ 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  IVIAJORITY. 

*'The  committee  of  the  majority,  from  the  uniled  com- 
mittee on  the  state  of  the  church,  beg  leave  to  report  : 

That  having  been  unable  to  agree  with  the  minority's 
committee  on  any  plan  for  the  immediate  and  voluntary 
separation  of  the  New  and  Old  School  parties  in  the  Pres- 
byterian church,  they  lay  before  the  General  Assemblv 
the  papers  which  {>;xssed  between  the  committees,  and 
which  contain  all  the  important  proceedings  of  both  bodies. 

The  papers  are  marked  one  to  live  of  the  mnjoritv  and 
one  to  four  of    the    minority.      A    careful  examination  of 
them  %vill  show  that    the    two  committees  were  agreed  iu 
the  following  matters,  namely  : 
16* 


186 

1.  The  propriety  of  a  voluntary  Sf-paration  of  the  par- 
ties in  our  cliurcli  ;  and  their  separate  organization. 

2.  As  to  the  corporale  funds,  xi)e  names  to  he  held  by 
•  acli  denomination,  the  records  of  the  church,  and  its 
boards  and  insiitulions. 

It  will  further  appear,  that  tlie  conrmiltce  were  entirely 
unable  to  agree  on    the  foUov/iiig  points,  Jiamely  ; 

1.  As  to  tl)e  propriety  of  entering  at  once,  bv  the  As- 
sembly, upon  the  ilivision,  or  the  sending  down  of  the  qucs- 
lion  to  tlie  Presbyteries. 

2.  As  to  the  power  c>f  the  Assembly  to  take  efTectua! 
jnitiative  steps,  as  proposed  by  the  majority  ;  or  the  neces- 
jty  of  obtaining  a  change  in  the  constitution  of  the  church. 

3.  As  to  the  breaking  up  of  the  succession  of  llie  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  so  that  neither  of  the  new  Assemblies  pro- 
pos3d,  to  be  considered  lids  proper  Lody  continued,  or  that 
the  body  which  should  retain  the  name  and  institutions 
of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in 
the  United  Staies  of  America,  should  be  held  in  fact  and 
la\v,tobethe  true  successors  of  ^/t«s  body.  While  the 
committee  of  the  majority  were  perfectly  disposed  to  do 
all  that  the  utmost  lil)erality  couid  demand,  and  to  use"  in 
all  cases  such  expressions  as  should  be  wholly  unexcep- 
tionable ;  yet  it  appears  to  us  indispensable  to  take  our 
final  stand  on  these  grounds. 

For,  first,  we  are  convinced  that  if  any  thing  tending 
towards  a  \oluniary  separation  is  done,  it  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  do  it  effectually  and  at  once. 

Secondly.  As  neiiher  party  profceses  any  desire  to  alter 
any  constiiutional  rule  whatever,  it  seems  to  us  not  only 
needless,  but  absurd,  to  send  down  an  overture  to  the  Pres- 
byteries <m  this  subject.  We  believe,  moreover,  that  full 
jiower  exists  in  the  Assembly,  either  by  consent  of  parlies, 
or  in  the  way  of  discipline,  to  settle  this  and  all  such 
cases  ;  and  that  its  speedy  settlement  is  greatly  to  be  de- 
sired. 

Thirdly.  In  regard  to  the  succession  of  the  General 
Assembly,  this  counnittee  could  not,  in  present  circum- 
stances, consent  to  any  thing  that  should  even  imply  the 
final  dissolution  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  as  now  organ- 
ized in  this  country  ;  which  idea,  it  will  be  observed,  is  at 
the  basis  of  the  plan  of  the  minority ;  insomuch  that  even 


187 

the  body  retaining  the  name  and  instiuitions  should  not  be 
considered  the  successor  of  ihis  body. 

Finally.  It  will  be  observed  from  our  (ifih  paper,  as 
com|)ared  with  the  fourih  p;ip','r  of  the  minority's  commit- 
tee, that  the  final  shape  which  their  proposal  assumed,  was 
such,  that  it  was  impossible  for  the  majority  of  the  house 
to  carry  out  its  views  and  wishes,  let  the  vute  tJe  as  it  might. 
For  if  the  house  should  vote  for  the  plan  of  the  committee 
of  the  majority,  the  otlier  committee  would  not  consider 
itself  or  its  friends  bound  thereby :  and  voluiiiaii/  division 
would  therefore  be  impossible,  in  that  case.  But  if  the 
house  should  vote  for  the  minority's  plan,  then — the  fore- 
going insuperable  objections  to  that  plan  being  supposed 
to  be  surmounted — still  the  whole  case  would  be  put  oft', 
perhaps  indefinitely."     See  McElroy's  Report,  p.  49. 

REICKT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  MINORITY. 

"The  subscribers,  appointed  members  of  the  committee 
of  ten  on  the  state  of  the  ciiurch,  respectfully  ask  leave  to 
report,  as  follows  : 

It  being  understood  that  one  object  of  the  appointment 
of  said  committee  was  to  considder  the  expediency  of  a 
voluntary  division  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  and  to  de- 
vise a  plan  for  the  same,  they,  in  connection  with  the  other 
members  of  the  committee,  have  had  the  subject  under 
deliberation. 

The  subscibers  had  believed  that  no  such  imperious  ne- 
cessity for  a  division  of  the  church  existed,  as  some  of 
their  brethren  supposed,  and  that  the  consequences  of  di- 
vision would  be  greatly  to  be  deprecated.  Such  necessity, 
however,  being  urged  by  many  of  our  brethren,  we  have 
been  induced  to  yield  lo  their  wishes,  and  to  admit  the  ex- 
pediency of  a  division,  provided  the  same  could  be  accom- 
plished in  an  amicable,  equitable,  and  projier  manner. 
We  have  accordingly  submitted  the  following  propositions 
to  our  brethren  on  the  other  part  of  the  same  committee, 
who  at  the  same  time  submitted  to  us  their  proposition, 
which  is  annexed  to  this  report.  (Hei-e  read  the  proposi- 
tion marked  Minority  No.  1,  and  Majority  No.  2.) 

Being  info.vmed  by  tiie  other  members  of  the  committee, 
that  they  had   concluded  not  to   discuss  in  committee  the 


188 

propositions  which  should  be  submitted,  and  Uiat  al!  pro- 
positions on  both  sides  were  to  be  in  writing,  and  to  be'un- 
swered  in  writing,  tiie  following  ]);ipers  passrd  between  the 
two  parts  of  the  committee.  (litre  read  papers,  No.  2, 
minority — 2,  majoriiy — 3,  majority — 3,  minority — 4,  ma- 
jority— 4.  minority — 5,  majority.) 

From  these  papers  it  will  be  seen,  that  the  only  ques- 
tion of  any  importance  upon  which  the  committee  diflered, 
was  that  proposed  to  be  submitted  to  the  decision  uf  tiie 
Assembly,  as  preliminary  to  any  action  upon  the  details 
of  eiiher>pl.in.  'I'herefore,  believing  that  the  members  of 
this  Assembly  have  neither  a  constitutional  nor  moral  right 
to  adopt  a  plan  for  a  division  of  the  church,  in  relation  to 
which  they  are  entirely  nninstructed  by  the  Presbyteries  ; 
believing  that  the  course  proposed  by  their  brethren  of  the 
comnnttee  to  be  entirely  inefficacious,  and  calculated  toin- 
troduce  confusion  and  discord  into  the  whole  church,  and 
instead  of  mitigating,  to  enhance  the  evils  which  it  propo- 
ses to  remove  ;  regarding  the  plan  proposed  by  them- 
selves, with  the  modification  thereof  as  before  stated, 
as  presenting  in  general  the  only  safe,  certain,  and  con- 
stitutional mode  of  division,  the  subscribers  do  respectfully 
submit  the  same  to  the  Assembly  for  their  adoption  or  re- 
jection." See|  McElroy's  Report,  p.  50. 

From  the  report  of  the  committee  of  the  majority,  it 
will  be  seen  that  they  very  aignijicantly  objected  "  to  the 
breaking  up  of  the  succession  of  this  General  Assembly. "^ 
From  their  report  and  the  papers  that  they  submitted  to 
the  other  portion  of  tise  committee,  it  will  also  be  seen, 
that  their  propositions  in  relation  to  "  the  succession,'"  and 
the  church  property  were  stated  in  language  well  calcula- 
ted to  deceive  the  unsuspecting. 

It  will,  however,  be  seen  that  the  attempt  at  an  amica- 
ble adjustment  failed  because  they  wanted  every  thing 
made  sure  to  them  and  nothing  secure  to  the  others — 
claiming  for  themselves  exclusively  the  succession  of  the 
Presbyterian  church. 

The  consequence  of  such  a  division  to  the  Constitution! 
party  would  have  been  to  make  them  at  once  seceders  from 
the  church  of  their  fiithers — a  church  to  whose  constitu- 
tion and  principles  they  were  determined  to  adhere.     And 


189 

b)'  such  a  course  they    would   have   excluded    themselves 
fVoni  all  legal  claim  to  the  property  of    the  church. 

But  there  were  other  considerations  of  weightier  value 
with  the  Constitutional  party  than  dollars  and  cents,  in- 
deed had  there  been  no  other  interests  involved,  it  is  be- 
lieved, they  would  have  relinquished  their  just  claim  to 
their  share  of  the  property.  .  But  there  were  other  inter- 
ests— their  honesty,  their  consistency,  tlieir  christian  rep- 
utation, their  zeal  for  the  church,  their  usefulness.  They 
could  not  consent,  without  a  struggle,  to  be  unjustly  branded 
heretics  or  seceders  from  a  church  they  were  as  ardently 
'attached  as  those  were  who  would  exclude  them.  They 
were  unwilling  to  be  cut  off  and  disfranchised,  and  then 
covered  with  such  reproaches  as  "  710  Preshyieriavs^' — 
^^ false  and  deceivers'^ — "  enemies  to  the  Presbyterian 
chui'ch"  4"C. 

The  reader,  however,  must  judge  which  party  was  to 
blame  for  the  failure  in  this  attempt  at  an  amicable  ad- 
justment of  conflicting  claims. 

When  the  effort  for  an  amicable  separation  failed,  Mr. 
Breckinridge  the  same  morning,  according  to  his  declara- 
tion in  the  co^nmittee  of  ten,  offered  a  resolution  to  cut  off 
the  Synod  of  the  Western  Reserve.  The  work  of  excis- 
ion then  progressed,  until  they  cut  off  "  a  sufficient  num- 
ber of  Synods  from  the  General  Assembly  to  secure  there- 
after, in  that  body,  the  preponderance  of  the  Old  School." 

The  next  attempt  at  an  amicable  adjustment  was  while 
the  two  parties  were  in  Convention,  before  the  meeting  of 
the  Assembly  in  1838. 

On  the  15lh  of  May,  1838,  the  Constitutional  conven- 
tion sent  the  following  proposal  to  tiie  Reform  conven- 
tion, viz.: 

"  Resolved,  That  while  we  regard  with  deep  sorrow  the 
existing  difficulties  in  our  beloved  church,  we  vvou'd  "fond- 
ly hope,  that  there  are  no  insurmountable  obstacles  in  the 
way  of  averting  the  calamities  of  a  violent  dismember- 
ment, and  of  securing  such  an  organization  as  may  avoid 
collisions,  and  secure  the  blessings  of  a  perpetuated  harmo- 
nious action. 

'•  Resolved,  That  we  are  ready  to  co-operate  in  any  ef- 
forts for  pacification,  which  are  constitutional,  and  which 
shall  recognise  the  regular    standing  and  secure  the  rights 


100 

of  the  entire  church  ;  including  those  portions  which  the 
acts  of  the  last  General  Assembly  were  intended  to  ex- 
clude. 

*'  Resolved,  That  a  committe  of  three  be  now  appoint- 
ed, respectfully  to  communicate  the  foregoing  resolutions 
to  those  commissioners,  now  in  session  in  this  city,  who 
are  at  present  inclined  to  sustain  the  acts  of  the  last  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  and  enquire  whether  they  will  open  a 
friendly  conference  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  if  some 
constitutional  terms  of  pacification  may  not  be  agreed 
upon."     See  Cincinnati  Journal,  28lh  of  June,  1838. 

To  this  communication  the  Reform  Convention  returned 
the  following  answer,  viz.: 

"  The  committee  on  the  communication  from  the  meet- 
ing of  commissioners,  now  in  session  in  the  lecture  room 
of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church,  presented  the  following 
preamble  and  resolutions,  which  were  adopted,  viz.: 

"  Whereas,  the  resolutions  of  the  meeting,  whilst  they 
profess  a  readiness  to,  co-operate  in  any  efforts  for  pacifi- 
cation, which  are  constitutional,'  manifestly  procetd  upon 
the  erroneous  supposition,  that  the  acts  of  the  last  Gener- 
al Assembly,  declaring  the  fuur  Synods  of  the  Western  Re- 
serve, Utica,  Geneva,  and  Genesee,  out  of  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal connection  of  our  church,  were  unconstituiional  and 
invalid,  and  the  convention  cannot  for  a  moment  consent 
to  consider  them  in  this  light  ;  therefore, 

"  Resolved,  unanimously,  that  the  convention  regard  the 
said  overture  of  the  said  meeting,  however  intended,  as 
founded  upon  a  basis  which  is  wholly  inadmissible,  and  as 
calculated  only  to  disturb  that  peace  of  our  church,  which 
a  calm  and  firm  adherence  to  those  constitutional,  just  and 
necessary  acts  of  the  last  General  Assembly,  can  alone, 
by  the  blessings  of  Divine  Providence,  establish  and  secure. 

"  Resolved,  That  in  the  judgment  of  the  convention, 
the  resolution  of  the  last  General^  Assembly,  which  pro- 
vides, in  substance,  "  that  all  the  churches  and  ministers 
within  the  said  four  Synods,  which  are  strictly  Presbyte- 
rian in  doctrine  and  order,  and  wish  to  unite  with  us,  may 
apply  for  admission  into  those  Presbyteries  belonging  to 
our  connection  which  are  most  convenient  to  their  respec- 
tive locations;  and  that  any  such  Presbytery  as  aforesaid, 
being  strictly  Presbyterian  in  doctrine  and  order,  and  now 


191 

in  connection  with  any  of  the  said  Synods,  as  may  desire 
to  unite  with  us,  are  directed  to  make  application,  with  a 
full  st:itement  of  their  case  to  the  next  General  Assembly, 
which  will  take  order  therein,  furnishes  a  fair  and  ea><y 
mode  of  proceeding,  by  which  all  such  ministers,  churches, 
and  Presbyteries  within  the  said  Synods,  as  are  really  desi- 
rous to  be  recognized  as  in  regular  standing  with  us,  and  as 
proper  parts  of  our  entire  church,  may  obtain  their  object 
without  trouble  and  without  delay."  See  Cincinnati  Jour- 
nal, June  28th,  1838. 

The  reader,  by  comparing  these  two  communications, 
will  be  able  to  see  which  party  was  most  desirous  to  have 
an  amicable  adjustment.  The  Reformers  took  umbrage  at 
the  word  "  constitutional.''''  Hence  they  regarded  the  over- 
ture "as  calculated  only  to  disturb"  the  peace  of  the 
church.  They  seemed  to  think  that  their  plan  of  excision 
and  division  and  seizure  of  the  property  of  the  entire 
church,  was  the  only  way  to  peace.  They  would  not  al- 
low any  overture  for  a  friendly  arrangement  to  disturb  the 
peace  of  the  church.  The  plain  meaning  of  all  was — our 
plans  must  not  be  disturbed  ;  and  if  you  will  just  agree 
to  let  us  cut  off  Synods  enough  to  secure  to  us  forever 
liereafter  a  majority,  and  to  complete  the  reformation  and 
division  of  the  church  thus  "  auspiciously  begun,"  and 
secure  the  property  to  which  your  party  has  forfeited  its 
title,  then,  by  the  blessings  of  Divine  Providence,  we  will 
have  peace  !  ! 

The  two  parties  had  not  yet  separated,  yet  nearly  all 
prospect  of  conciliation,  or  of  an  amicable  division  was 
foreclosed. 

But  when  the  Assembly  met  and  the  parties  had  separa- 
ted, by  the  organization  of  two  Assemblies,  the  Constitu- 
tionalists were  still  desirous  for  an  amicable  adjustment. 
Accordingly  the  Constitutional  Assembly,  on  the  24th  of 
May,  1838,  passed  the  following  resolution,  viz.; 

"  Resolved,  That  this  body  is  willing  to  agree  to  any 
reasonable  measures  tending  to  an  amicable  adjustment  of 
the  difficulties  existing  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  and 
will  receive  and  respectfully  consider  any  propositions 
which  may  be  made  for  that  purpose."  See  Cincinnati 
Journal,  June  28th,  1838. 


192 

•'  Besides  these  overtures  for  peace,  inflLiential  members 
of  the  Assembly  held  personal  conference  with  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Reform  body,  till  it  was  ascertained  that  there 
M'as  no  hope  of  an  amicable  settlement  of  differences."  See 
Pastoral  Letter  of  the  Constitutional  Assembly  of  1838. 

What  then  could  the  Constitutional  party  do  1  One  of 
two  things  they  were  obliged  to  do  ;  either  SM/>/»i/  uncon- 
ditionally to  the  Reformers — or  "  appeal  to  Coesar,"  to 
know  if  he  would  allow  one  portion  of  a  church  to  dis- 
franchise the  olher.  They  chose  the  latter  alternaiive  ; 
and  the  Trustees  of  the  Assembly  instituted  suit  against 
the  Trustees  of  the  New  Basis  Assembly. 

Cut  before  the  trial  came  on,  the  Constitutional  party 
were  still  anxious  for  an  amicable  arrangement,  as  will 
appear  from  the  following  facts  : 

"  In  the  Assembly,  which  met  in  the  First  Church,  May 
20th,  1839,  Judge  Darling,  from  the  committee  of  twelve, 
appointed  on  the  21st  of  May,  1838,  "  to  advise  and  direct 
in  respect  to  any  legal  questions  and  pecuniary  interests 
that  might  require  attention  during  the  ensuing  year,"  re- 
ported that  previous  to  the  trial  before  Judge  Rogers,  at 
Nisi  Prius,  the  committee  were  informed  by  one  of  their 
counsel,  that  John  R.  Kane,  Esq.,  one  of  the  Trustees  of 
the  General  Assembly,  and  who  was  of  counsel  for  the 
respondents,  had  stated  to  him,  that  those  he  represented 
were  disposed  to  adjust,  amicably  and  equitably,  all  mat- 
ters in  controversy  in  this  cause,  and  had  requested  him  to 
ascertain  what  terms  the  committee  would  propose,  as  a 
basts  for  an  amicable  division  of  the  Presbyterian  church, 
and  the  final  adjustment  of  all  the  matters  in  dispute  be- 
tween the  Reformed  and  Constitutional  General  Assem- 
blies. Keeping  in  view  the  resolution  of  the  General  As- 
sembly of  1838,  viz.:  "  That  this  body  is  willing  to  agree 
toany  reasonable  measures  tending  to  an  amicable  adjust- 
ment of  the  difficulties  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  and 
will  receive  and  respectfully  consider,  any  propositions 
made  for  that  purpose" — they  waived  all  exceptions  which 
might  have  been  taken  to  enter  into  negotiation  with,  or 
to  making  propositions  to,  an  irresponsible  individual,  and 
promptly  requested  their  counsel  to  furnish  Mr.  Kane  with 
a  copy  of  the  following  articles  : 


193 


ARTICLES    OF    AGREEMENT    PROPOSED. 

"  In  order  to  secure  an  amicable    and  equitable  adjust 
ment  of  the  difficulties  existing  in  the  Presbyterian  chuich 
in  the  United  States  of  America,  it  is  hereby  agreed  by  the 
respective  parties,    that  the  following   shall  be  articles  on 
which  a  division  shall  be  made  and  continued. 

Art.  1.  The  successors  of  the  body  which  held  its  ses- 
sions in  Ranstead  Court,  shall  hereafter  be  known  by  the 
name  and  style  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian church  in  the  United  States  of  America.  The  suc- 
cessors of  the  body  which  held  its  sessions  in  the  First 
Presbyterian  church,  shall  hereafter  be  known  by  the 
name  and  style  of  "  The  General  Assembly  cf  the  Ameri- 
can Presbyterian  church.^' 

Art.  2.  Joint  application  shall  be  mnde  by  the  parties 
to  this  agreement,  to  the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania,  for 
a  charter  to  incorporate  Trustees  of  each  of  the  respec- 
tive bodies,  securing  to  each  the  immunities  and  privileges 
now  secured  by  the  existing  charter  to  the  Trustees  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  Preobyterian  church  in  the 
United  States  of  America;  subject  nevertheless,  to  the 
limitations  and  articles  herein  agreed  on  ;  and  when  so 
obtained,  the  ejiisting  charter  shall  be  surrendered  to  the 
State. 

Art.  3.  Churches,  ministers,  and  members  of  churches, 
as  well  as  Presbyteries,  shall  be  at  full  liberty  to  decide 
to  which  of  the  said  Assemblies  they  will  be  attached  ; 
and  in  case  the  majority. of  legal  voters  of  any  congrega- 
tion shall  prefer  to  be  connected  with  any  Presbytery  con- 
nected with  the  Assembly  to  which  their  Presbytery  is 
not  attached,  they  shall  certify  the  same  to  the  stated  clerk 
of  the  Presbytery,  which  they  wish  to  leave,  and  their 
connection  with  said  Presbytery  shall  henceforth  cease. 

Art.  4.  The  Theological  Seminary  of  Princeton,  the 
Western  Theological  Seminary,  the  Board  of  Foreign 
Missions,  the  Board  of  Domestic  Missions,  the  Board  of 
Education  with  the  funds  appertaining  to  each,  shall  be 
the  property  and  subject  to  the  exclusive  control  of  the 
body  which,  according  to  this  agreement,  shall  be  charter- 
ed under  the  title  of  '  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Pre3- 
■byterian  church  in  the  United  States  of  America.' 
17 


194 

This  agreement  shall  not  be  considered  a  secession,  on 
(lie  part  of  either  body,  from  the  Presbyterian  church  in 
the  United  States  of  America,  but  a  voluntary  and  arnica 
ble  division  of  this  church  into  two  denominations,  each 
retaining  all  the  ecclesiatical  and  pecuniary  rights  of  the 
whole  body,  with  the  limitations  and  qualifications  in  the 
above  articles  specified." 

The  only  reply  which  the  committee  received  to  these 
propositions  was,  that  they  could  not  be  accepted,  but  that 
the  Old  School  party  would  agree  that  the  members  of  the 
Constitutional  General  Assembly,  and  all  who  adhered  to 
this  General  Assembly,  should  be  at  liberty  to  leave  the 
Presbyterian  church  without  molestation  from  them,  and 
that  they  should  not  be  called  seceders.  See  McElroy's 
lleport,  pp.  6,  7. 

From  the  documents  already  given,  it  will  be  seen  that 
the  Constitutional  party  made  several  overtures  for  an  am- 
icable adjustment,  and  that  all  their  overtures  were  prompt- 
ly rejected  by  the  Reformers. 

On  the  other  hand,  nothing  like  an  overture  was  made 
by  the  Reformers,  except  some  resolutions  which  they 
adopted  in  1839,  after  they  were  induced  by  the  opinion  of 
Judge  Gibson  to  consider  the  property  all  their  own. 

The  principles  of  these  resolutions  are  set  forth  in 
the  third,  viz.: 

<'  The  Trustees  of  the  Assembly  are  hereby  authorized 
and  requested  to  do  on  the  part  of  this  Assem.bly,  should 
occasion  offer,  whatever  is  lawful,  competent,  and  equita- 
ble in  the  premises,  conformable  to  the  principles  and  in 
the  manner  heretofore  laid  down  in  the  minutes  of  this 
Assembly  for  1837  and  1838,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  cor<- 
porate  property  of  the  church,  and  any  equities  springing 
out  of  the  same." 

The  phraseology  of  this  resolution  ought  to  be  marked. 
The  Trustees  are  authorized  to  do  what  is  "  lajoful,^'  SfC, 
"  conformable  to  the  principles,  and  in  tlie  manner  heretofore 
laid  down  in  the  minutes  of  this  Assembly  for  1837  and 
1838."  But  what  were  "  the  principles''  laid  down  in  1837 
and  1838  1  They  were  these  :  Minorities  of  Synods, 
Presbyteries  and  churches  xoere  to  be  considered  the  bodies, 
in  cafes  lohere  the  majorities  fail  to  adfiere  upon  the  basis 
of  1^37  and  1838. 


195 


It  is  true  they  said  in  the  Reform  Ordinance  of  1838  ; 
"  In  regard  to  the  temporal  interests  of  the  churches  and 
the  difficulties  which  may  arise  on  their  account,  the  As- 
setnbly  advise  that,  on  the  one  hand,  great  liberality  and 
generosity  should  mark  the  whole  conduct  of  our  people, 
and  especially  in  cases  where  our  majorites  in  the  church- 
es are  very  large,  or  our  minorites  very  small  :  while  on 
the  other  hand,  it  would  advise,  that  providential  advan- 
tages,  and  important  rights,  ought  not  in  any  case  to  be 
lightly  thrown  away." 

What  was  meant  by  **  providential  advantages  and  iwt- 
porlant  rights'"  is  uncertain.     The  language  is  ambiguous. 

The  intelligent  reader  can  now  decide  for  himself  which 
party  was  "  willing  and  anxious  to  have  an  amicaile  ad- 
justment,^^ and  which  party  was  to  be  blamed  for  the  "  wn- 
christian  appeal  to  the  civil  courts.^' 


(  li^6) 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 


P.ESULT3  OF  LEGAL  INVESTIGATION. 


As  all  the  effoitsof  the  Constitutional  party  for  an  ami- 
cable adjuslment  of  difficulties  were  unsuccessful,  no  ak 
teruative  was  left  but  to  bring  suit  against  the  Reformers, 
who  had  all  the  chartered  funds  of  the  General  Assembly 
in  their  possession. 

The  suit  was  instituted  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  Penn- 
5=y]vania,  in  July,  1838. 

The  case  Was  taken  up  in  March,  1839,  the  Hon.  Mil- 
ion  C.  Rogers  presiding.  The  trial  occupied  twenty  days- 
After  the  Judge  had  given  his  charge  to  the  jury,  they, 
after  a  short  absence,  retarned  and  rendered  a  verdict  for 
the  Constitutional  party. 

There  are  some  points  in  the  charge  of  Judge  Rogers, 
which  should  be  noticed. 

It  had  been  urged  by  the  Reformers  that  the  Plan  of 
Union  of  1801  was  unconstitutional ;  and  upon  this  as- 
sumption they  based  the  excinding  acts.  But  here  the 
Judge  was  against  them.  He  says  :  "So  far  from  believ- 
ing tlie  Plan  of  Union  to  be  unconstitutional,  1  concur 
fully  with  one  of  the  counsel,  that,  confined  within  its  le- 
gitimate limits,  it  is  an  agreement  or  regulation,  which 
the  General  Assembly  not  only  had  power  to  make,  but 
that  it  is  one  which  is  well  calculated  to  {)romote  the  best 
interests  of  religion." 

The  Judge  asserts  that  if  the  Plan  were  unconstitu- 
tional, there  is  no  evidence  that  the  excluded  Synods  were 
farmed  under  it.     He  says:  "The  compact,  as  has  been 


••• 


before  observed,  was  intended  for  a  different  purpose,  and 
imposed  on  the  Presbyterian  church  no  obligation  to  admit 
churches  formed  on  the  Plan,  as  members.  It  was  a  \  o!- 
untary  act,  and  not  the  necess&ry  result  of  the  agreement ; 
nor  does  it  appear  th.it  the  Presbyteries  were  formed  ar.d 
incorporated  with  the  church  on  any  other  terms  or  condi- 
tions than  other  Presbyteries,  who  were  in  regular  course 
talcen  into  the  Presbyterian  connection."' 

It  was  the  opinion  of  the  Judge,  that  in  the  excinding 
process,,  '''■the  suhsUinlial  forms  of  justice^''  were  not  ob- 
served. He  says  :  "But  so  far  from  this,  the  General  As- 
sembly, in  the  plenitude  of  its  power,  has  undertaken  to 
exclude  from  all  their  rights  and  privileges  tv/enty-eight 
Presbyteries,  who  are  its  constituents,  without  notice,  and 
without  even  the  form  of  trial.  By  tlie  resolutions,  the 
commissioners,  who  had  acted  as  members  of  the  Generiil 
Assembly  for  two  weeks,  were  at  once  deprived  of  their 
seats.  Four  Synods,  twenty-eight  Presbyteries,  five  hun- 
dred and  nine  ministers,  five  hundred  and  ninety-nine 
churches,  and  sixty  thousand  communicants,  were  at  once 
disfranchised  and  deprived  of  their  privileges  in  this 
church.  This  proceeding  is  not  only  contrary  to  the  eter- 
nal principles  of  justice,  the  principles  of  the  common 
law,  but  it  is  at  variance  with  the  constitution  of  the 
church." 

Nor  would  he  admit  that  the  excision  was  a  legislative 
act.  His  language  is  :  "This  is  not  in  the  nature  of  a  le- 
gislative, but  it  is  a  }'w(/icifl/ proceeding  to  all  intents  and 
purposes.  It  is  idle  to  deny  that  the  Presbyteries  within 
the  infected  districts,  as  they  are  called,  were  treated  as 
enemies  and  offenders  against  the  rules,  regulations,  and 
doctrines  of  the  cli  i;ch." 

The  Judge  goes  on  to  say,  in  reference  to  the  plea,  that 
the  excision  was  hgislative — '  But  admitting  this  to  be  in 
the  nature  of  a  legislative  proceeding,  still  it  is  void  ;  for 
I  deny  the  right  of  any  legislature  to  deprive  an  elector 
of  his  right  to  vote,  either  with  or  without  trial.  This  is 
a  power  which  can  only  be  exercised  by  a  judicial  tribu- 
nal, who  act  under  the  sanction  of  an  oath,  who  examine 
witnesses  on   oath,  and  who  conform    to   all   the  rales;  of 

evidence  established  by  the  usages  of  law." 

■<  '^  * 


Aher  deciding  tliat  the  Plan  of  Union  was  not  unconstilu- 
•ional, and  that  the  excinding  acts  of  1837,  '■^wtre  unconsli- 
liilional,  mill  and  void,"  he  proceeds  to  decide  several  im- 
{■■oitant  points  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Assenribly  of  1838. 

Be  decided  "that  the  commissioners  from  the  Presbyte- 
ries, within  the  Lovinds  of  these  Synods,  had  the  same 
rii^hi  to  seats  in  the  General  Assembly  as  the  members 
from  the  other  Presbyteries  within  tlie  jarisdkuion  of  the 
Assembly." 

It  was  the  opinion  of  tlie  Judge,  that  Dr.  Elliot,-  the' 
moderator,  in  declaring  the  appeal  of  Dr.  Mason  out  of 
order,  was  chargeable  with  "a  vsurpa/ion  of  authority V 

It  was  also  the  opinion  of  the  Judge  "that  the  General 
Assembly  has  a  right  to  depose  their  moderator  upon  suf- 
ficient cause." 

And  on  the  subject  of  Mr.  Cleaveland's  alleged  irregu- 
larity, in  putting  the  question  to  the  house  for  a  new  mod- 
erator, the  Judge  says:  "It  is  the  opinion  of  the  Court, 
that  a  member,  although  not  an  officer,  is  entitled  to  put  a 
question  to  the  house  in  such  circumstances." 

Jn  reference  to  tlie  oljections  oflctr  urged  against  the 
want  of  some  of  the  usual  forms,  the  Judge  says  :  "Tliat 
the  fact  that  Mr.  Cleaveland  put  the  question,  instead  of 
the  moderator,  the  cries  of  order  wlien  this  was  in  pro- 
gress, the  omission  of  some  of  the  formula  usually  ob- 
served when  there  is  no  contest  and  no  excitement,  such 
as  standing  in  the  aisle  instead  of  taking  the  chair  occu- 
pied by  the  moderator,  not  using  the  usual  insignia  of  of- 
fice, pulling  the  question  in  an  unusual  place,  and  the  short 
time  consumed  in  the  organization  of  the  house,  and  three 
or  more  members  sftanding  at  the  same  time,  will  not  vi- 
tiate the  organization,  if  you  should  be  of  the  opinion  that 
this  became  necessary  from  the  illegal  and  improper  con- 
duct of  the  adverse  party." 

Judge  Rogers'  charge  to  the  jury  contains,  in  addition 
to  a  clear  and  lucid  exposition  of  conslituiional  and  com- 
mon law,  a  concise  an  pretty  accurate  history  of  the  whole 
controversy.  It  may  be  s(^en  in  McElioy's  Report  of  the 
Church  Case,  pp.  500,  5-29. 

The  result  of  the  trial  has  already  been  stated.  After 
a  long  and  patient  hearing,  the  verdict  of  an  imparlial 
jury  was  for  the  Constitutional  party. 


The  Old  School  had  liiiherto  been  very  clnmoroiiff 
ngain^t  Christians  nppcaling  to  Ciesar.  Indeed,  they  shosv"' 
td  a  great  uii\villingn(  ss  to  have  their  acts  reviewed  by  a 
civil  tribunal.  Meirsrs.  Breckinridge,  Plumer,  d:c.  de- 
clared that  they  would  not  submit  to  puch  a  review,  be- 
cause it  would  be  rendering  to  Cseser  the  things  that  are 
God's  But  it  has  always  been  true  that  men,  who  are 
chargeable  with  wrong-doing,  do  not  love  the  civil  courts. 

VVlien,  however,  the  decision  of  the  Court  went  against 
tiiem,  they  soon  changed  their  minds,  and  with  great  haste 
they  themselves  appealed  to  Caisi  r.  Their  Counsel  mov- 
ed the  Court  in  Bunk  for  an  order  for  a  new  trial.  The 
order  was  granted  and  the  majority  of  the  Court  in  grant- 
ing the  order  gave  an  opinion,  through  Chief  Justice  Gib- 
&-on,  a(iverse  to  the  decision  under  Judge  Rogers. 

A  few  points  in  the  opinion  of  Judge  Gibson  are  worthy 
cf  notice. 

The  Reformers  had  based  (heir  excision  upon  the  un- 
constitutionality of  the  Plan  of  Union  of  1801.  But 
Judi^e  Gibson  concurred  in  oi)inion  with  Judge  Hogers  that 
the  Plan  was  constituliona!. 

Judgo  Rogers  in  his  charge  has  said  that  the  cxcinded 
"  were  treated  as  enemies  and  offenders  against  the  rules 
of  the  church,  and  that  the  act  of  excision  vvtis  a  *■  judi- 
cial' \)\occei\\ng  to  all  intents  and  pui  poses."  But  here 
Judge  Gibson  gives  a  different  opinion,  tie  says  :  "  The 
sentence  of  excision,  as  it  has  been  called,  was  nothing 
else  than  an  ordinance  of  dissolution."  This,  however, 
was  an  apology  too  flinipsy  even  for  the  Reformers.  They 
know,  and  so  does  every  one  acquainted  with  Presbyleri- 
anism,  that  to  dissolve  and  cxeind  are  very  diflercnt  things. 
A  Synod  nnay  dissolve  a  Pre^bv  tcry,  or  tlie  General  As- 
sembly may  dissolve  a  Synod.  But  the  dissolution  never 
throws  the  members  out  of  the  church.  It  only  changes 
tlieir  Presbyterial  or  Synodicnl  relation.  Plxcislon,  how- 
ever, is  a  turning  out,  or  a  cutting  off  from  the  church. 
It  is  excommunication  to  all  intents  and  purposes. 

The  Synods  were  cut  oil'.  Judger  Gibson  says  it  was 
*'  a  legislative  act.''  Judge  Rogers  says  it  was  "  a  judi- 
cial  proceeding.''^  Well,  the  thing  was  done.  The  enor- 
mity of  llie  act  was  great,  call  it.  t>y  what  name  you  niay. 


200 

But  Judize  Gibson,  whoso  opinion  strongly  favored  the  Ke' 
formersrwas  very  unwilling  tiiat  the  fxcision  should  be  call- 
ed a  judicial  act.  H is  language  is  :  "Now,  had  the  ixcinded 
Synods  been  cut  ofT  by  judicial  senlencu,  without  hearing 
or  notice,  the  act  would  have  been  contrary  to  the  car- 
dinal principles  of  natural  justice,  and  consequently  void. 
But,  though  it  was  at  first  resolved  to  proceed  judicially, 
the  measure  was  abandoned  ;  probably  because  it  came  to 
be  perceived  that  the  Synods  had  committed  no  olfence." 

Behold  the  potency  of  a  name  or  word  !  Hundreds  of 
ministers  and  thousands  o-f  members  •'  were  treated  as 
enemies  and  offenders  against  the  rules"  of  the  church, 
and  were  cut  off.  Now,  according  to  Judge  Gibson,  if 
you  call  the  proceeding  '' legislaiioey  a\[  is  well.  But 
call  it  <•'  jiidicml,''  and  the  aet  is  "  contrary  to  the  cardi- 
nal  principles  of  natural  justice." 

But  the  Judge  is  of  opinion  that  they  were  not  proceed- 
ed against  judicalhi,  as  at  first  proposed,  "  because  it 
came  to  be  "perceived  that  tho  Synods  had  committed  no 
offence."  But  this  is  an  explanation  the  Reformers  would 
not  receive.  The  plan  of  a  fair  and  legal  trial  was  aban- 
doned   because  it  was  thought  to  be  "  tedious  and  trouble- 

some.'''' 

In  reference  to  the  two  organizations,  when  the  x\ssem- 
bly  divided.  Judge  Gibson  gave  a  different  opinion  from 
the  decision  under  Judge  Rogers.  The  great  question 
before  the  jury  was,  which  body  organized  according  to 
the  esiablisiied  order  1  The  decision  under  Judge  Rogers 
was  that  the  Constitutional  Assembly  was  the  true  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  Judge  Gibson  was  of  a  different  opinion. 
Among  other  things,  he  objected  to  the  Constitutional  As- 
sembly's organization,  because  that  the  old  moderator, 
though  refusing  to  do  his  duty,  was  removed.  He  says  : 
"  BuUie  was  not  removeable  by  them,  because  he  had  not 
derived  his  office  from  them  ;  nor  was  ho  answerable  to 
them  for  the  use  of  his  power.  He  was  not  their  modera- 
tor.  He  was  the  mechanical  instrument  of  their  organi- 
zation ;  and  till  that  was  accomplished  they  were  subject 
to  his  rule — not  he  to  theirs." 

The  necessity  for  such  a  procedure  had  not  before  been 
forced  upon  the'Assembly.     But  that  Judge  Gibson's  opin- 


201 

ion,  in  reference  to  the  duties  and  powers  of  a  presiding 
otlicer,  is  not  the  opinion  of  deliberative  bodies,  is  evident 
not  only  from  the  measures  of  the  Constitutional  Assem- 
bly in  its  organization,  but  from  the  action  of  Congress 
since,  in  a  similar  case  as  mentioned  in  the  20th  Chapter 
of  this  history.  And  would  Judge  Gibson  say,  tliat  the 
2Gth  Congress  was  not  constitutionally  organized,  because, 
on  motion  of  Mr.  Adams,  the  presiding  officer  was  remov- 
ed and  another  put  in  his  place  ? 

There  were  many  other  points  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Judge  adverse  to  the  claims  of  the  Constitutional  party. 
They  can  be  seen  in  the  opinion,  in  JVIcElroy's  Eeport^ 
pp.  620—628. 

The  order  for  a  new  trial,  as  already  stated,  was  grant- 
ed. But  before  the  trial  came  on,  the  Consiitutional  party 
instructed  their  counsel  to  withdraw  the  suit. 

The  results,  therefore,  of  these  legal  investigations  ^ 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania,  are  briefly  these: 
Judgfi  Rogers,  in  the  first  trial,  charged  the  jury  in  favor 
of  the  Constitutional  party,  and  the  jury  gave  a  verdict  for 
them.  The  Reformers  made  a  motion  for  a  new  trial — 
the  order  was  granted,  the  Court  in  Bank  giving  an  opin- 
ion adverso  to  the  Constitutional  party,  by  whom  the  suit 
was  then  withdrawn. 

in  another  suit  in  Pennsylvania,  which  was  brought  up 
by  appeal  to  the  Supreme  court,  Judge  Gibson  took- occa- 
sion to  e;iplain  more  fully  the  principles  upon  which,  in  the 
former  suit,  his  opinion  had  been  given  in  favor  of  the 
Reformers.  This  will  be  noticed  in  giving  a  satement  of 
the  case  alluded  to — the  suit  at  York,  in  Pennsylvania. 

The  church  property  at  York  v\asof  some  value.  The 
Reform  part  of  the  church  brought  suit  against  the  Consti- 
tutional party.  It  was  tried  before  Judge  H  lys,  and  the 
jury  gave  a  verdict  for  the  Canstitutional  party. 

The  opinion  of  Judge  Gibson,  in  the  former  suit  bad  been 
a  matter  of  great  exultation  to  many  of  the  leading  Re- 
formers. And  the  party  at  York  no  doubt  felt  conlident' 
that  if  they  could  get  the  suit  before  Judge  Gibson,  hs 
would  reverse  the  decision  of  the  lower  court.  But  to  the 
astonishment  of  the  party,  he  affimed  the  decision,  and 
gave  the  property  to  the  Constitutional  party.     Judge  Gib- 


202 

con's  opinion  in  this  case  may  be  seen  in  tlie  Christian 
Observer  of  the  25lh  January,  1841. 

In  this  opinion  the  Judge  talies  occasion  to  explain  some 
points  in  his  former  opinion  that  had  been  misapprehended 
by  the  Reformers.  They  had  taken  it  for  granted,  that 
they  worQ  to  be  considered  the  only  true  Presbyterians, 
and  their  Assembly  the  only  true  Assembly — and  that  the 
New  School  had  forfeited  name,  rights,  property  and  all. 
Bui  the  Judge  now  corrects  this  misapprehension.  He 
says  that  the  order  for  a  new  trial,  in  the  former  case,  was 
granted  not  because  the  Old  School  "  xoere  more  Presby- 
terian than  the  New''' — but  because  the  Old  School  were  at 
the  time  "  the  stronger  pariy.^'' 

.  According,  then,  to  this  opinion,  if  the  New  School  in 
1831,  32,  33,34,  or  86,  when  they  were  the  stronger  par- 
ty, had  excinded  the  Old  School  and  seized  upon  the  funds, 
the  property  would  justly  be  theirs.  Such  a  decision,  up- 
on such  principles,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  puts  but  little  hon- 
or upon  laws  and  constitutions. 

The  Judge,  however,  says  that  if  the  New  School  had 
taken  such  a  course  it  "  would  have  loaded  the  New  School 
party  with  such  a  weight  of  popular  odium  as  would  have 
sunk  it."  This  to  be  sure  was  administering  a  keen  rebuke 
lo  the  Reformerj 

The  advocates  of  excision  had  contended  that  the  mea- 
sure was  a  necessary  expurgation,  and  that  those  who  united 
with  the  excinded  were  seceders;  and  they  supposed  that 
Judge  Gibson  in  the  former  instance  had  sanctioned  that 
view  of  the  case.  But  the  Supreme  Court,  in  the  York 
church  case,  deny  that  they  sanctioned  such  a  view.  They 
say  that  they  "did  not  determine  that  the  excision  was  ex- 
purgation and  not  division."  They  go  further  in  charac- 
terizing the  excision.  They  say  :  "Indeed  the  measure 
would  seem  to  be  as  decisively  revolutionary  as  would  be 
an  exclusion  of  particular  states  from  the  Federal  Union 
for  the  adoption  of  an  anti-republican  form  of  govern- 
ment." 

In  this  final  decision  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, the  opinion  was  clearly  expressed  that  the  New  Ba- 
sis acts  were  measures  "not  of  expurgation  but  of  dicis- 
iow" — not  of  reform,  but  of  revolution — not  a  rooting  oui 


^03 

of  Congregationalism,  but  a  dismembertnent  of  the  Pres- 
byterian body" — not  "merely  a  secession  of  particles 
leaving  the  original  mass  itself  entire,  but  the  original  mass 
was  split  into  two  fragments."  And  did  the  court  say 
that  one  party  was  truly  Presbyterian  and  the  other  was 
not?  No.  They  consider  the  New  School  as  much  Pres- 
byterian as  the  Old  School — -"each  so  like  its  fellow  as  to 
pass  for  its  twin  brother."  They  decided  that  the  claims 
of  the  New  School  in  the  former  suit  were  as  strong  as 
those  of  the  Old  School  with  one  exception,  and  that 
accidental,  viz.  :  that  at  the  time  of  the  revolution  or 
excision,  the  Old  School  were  the  stronger  party — having 
a  majority  of  six  in  an  Assembly  of  two  hundred  and 
fifty. 

There  have  been  a  few  other  suits,  the  results  of  which 
must  be  very  briefly  noticed. 

The  Reform  party,  a  minority  in  the  Nesharaony  church, 
in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  made  an  efTort  to  obtain  the 
church  property  ;  but  they  were  unsuccessful. 

The  Reform  party,  a  minority  in  the  Presbyterian 
church,  in  Florida,  in  the  State  of  New  York,  claiming 
to  be  the  only  true  Presbyterians,  because  of  their  adhe- 
sion to  the  New  Basis,  brought  suit  for  the  property.  They 
were  heard  at  length  in  the  Chancery  Court  of  that  State. 
But  their  claims  were  defeated  by  the  decision  of  the  Vice 
Chancellor  protecting  the  rights  and  property  of  the  Con- 
stitutional party. 

Another  suit  of  the  same  character  was  brought  by  the 
Reform  party  in  the  church  of  Somers,  in  the  State  of  New 
York.  They  informed  the  Constitutional  party,  that  they 
were  the  only  true  Presbyterians,  and  that  ihey  must  have 
the  church  property — house,  parsonage,  &c.  The  consti- 
tutional party,  who  were  the  majority,  proposed  that  the 
two  parties  should  use  the  church  alternately^  and  that  the 
question  concerning  property  should  be  settled  by  com- 
promise. But  the  Reform  party  would  not  compromise. 
The  clerk  of  the  congregation  being  on  their  side,  they 
took  possession  of  records,  church,  parsonage  and  all. 
Being  secure,  as  they  thought,  they  leased  the  parsonage 
to  a  tenant,  and  lay  quietly  "within  the  fortifications 
of  the  New  Basis." 


204 

The  old  trustees  had  no  other  alternative  left,  but  to  de- 
cide the  matter  by  a  law-suit.  Theyi  commenced  an  ac- 
tion of  eject  merit  for  the  parsonage.  After  a  patient  hear- 
ing, the  jury  gave  a  verdict  for  the  Constitutional  party 
without  leaving  their  seats. 

1  have  now  briefly  given  ihe  results  of  all  the  legal  in- 
vestigations of  which  1  have  certain  knowledge.  Except 
tlie  order  for  a  new  trial  in  one  case,  all  the  decisions  go 
to  vindicate  the  claims,  rights  and  characters  of  the  Con- 
stitutional party. 

And  now,  dear  reader,  I  have  gone  through  with  all  I 
i.^tended  to  present  to  you  on  llie  subject  of  the  Pres- 
byterian controversy.  In  presenting  this  history  of  events, 
I  was  desirous  that  you  should  see  how  the  matter  was 
viewed  by  both  parties.  1  have  presented  to  you  the  re- 
sults of  ecclesiastical  and  legal  investigations.  These  re- 
sults have  vindicated  the  rights  and  characters  of  the 
Constitutional  party;  and  it  is  believed  tliat  public  sen- 
timent approvea  the  noble  vindication. 


r 


Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01 


122  9681 


